Where's God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are right, correct interpretation is to use clear verses to interpret the less clear. Other verses show He meant they were both one in purpose and essence.
Which ones?
Withholding your power does not mean that you no longer have those powers or are no longer who you are. Two men climbing a mountain they both have backpacks, one is thin and appears very scrawny but easily defeats the other man who is strong and muscular, built like a linebacker. But then you look in the backpack. The thin man has a bottle water, the strong man has 200 pounds of rocks. Who would have won in the climb without the backpacks?
Look at the Bible. It's quite clear when you read about Jesus that he was just a man who was inspired by God and who loved God. He acts, in the Bible, exactly like any other prophet, such as Noah, Isaiah or Moses. He prays to God, he talks to God, he receives gifts from God.
God never gave a human omniscience.
And we haven't seen Jesus demonstrate omniscience either. God could certainly grant knowledge to his favoured humans, however, just as we see happening with Jesus.
We do know a little, we know how Christ reacted when He knew He was going to have to experience it. He was not just a human being, so His reaction was a little extreme thereby showing that His suffering was probably going to be beyond anything any human could suffer when He was separated from His divine father.
So: Christ knew that he was going to be killed by crucifixion. And you think his distress was caused by his being "separated from God" rather than having nails driven through his hands and feet and left to die one of the most agonising deaths possible?
Again, all you have is an empty claim. It seems perfectly reasonable that a person, facing death by torture, would be distressed.
 
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: Hardly, read a good history book on the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Pre WWII Japan.

ia: You said:
"The leaders of atheistic and humanistic nations tend to be evil because they tend to live consistently with their atheistic philosophies because they dont have governmental constraints on them like the common people. Also, because humans are naturally religious many dont go along with their leaders philosophies."
And I pointed out that this is just a string of unsubstantiated assertions. Which it is. First, there is no such thing as an atheistic philosophy. Fascism, Humanism and Communism are literally poles apart from each other.

They are atheistic in that they do not recognize the existence of any personal god. Some fascists' regimes like Nazi Germany recognized an impersonal pantheistic god but generally they do not. And they certainly do not recognize any moral code from a god, their moral code comes from humans.

ia: Your second sentence makes no sense. You said that atheists live in hellholes. Well, most Chinese people are atheists. Why is it, then, that they have governmental constraints that make them act like civilised people, which they do? Also, the Chinese culture has very little to do with Communism and a great deal to do with Confucianism. Take it from one who lives here.
Confucianism combined with their extremely homogeneous population has helped them to restrain their behavior. However, because of that they persecute religious people who dont go along their government philosophy and culture, such as serious Christians and Muslims. But their nation is a human right hell hole. Very little freedom at all. Plus using humans like they are material commodities. Plus their government has no moral standards at all.

ia: Your third sentence - "most humans are naturally religious" - wait, I thought it was only Christianity that had the power to inspire people to the level of ethical behaviour you claim.
No, because all humans are created in the image of the Christian God, when they make up their own religions they have some good qualities because of this inherent image.

ia: You have nothing. You want to say that atheists are evil people because they have no God, but the evidence is all against you. Obviously, they aren't.
No, I said depending on where the atheist was raised they can be evil and generally atheist leaders are evil. But not the ordinary atheist citizen. But over time since there is no moral anchor in God then an atheistic society goes down a slippery slope toward tyranny.

ed: Depends on if the humanist nation is a former Christian nation, but even over time as humanism gains greater power, the people start losing their freedoms and rights. Look at most of Europe.

ia: Again, this is just an unfounded assertion.
And since you've said nothing to refute what I said before, I'll just repeat it.
"In other words, it's just as I said. An atheistic society may have laws based on anything at all. If you are not aware of the enormous gulf between humanists and totalitarians - that is to say, that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum - then you don't know enough about this at the spectrum."
Hardly. Europe has started banning public speech criticizing homosexuality and Islam among other things. So they are plainly losing free speech.


ia: Also, please stop confusing atheistic (a statement about a person's beliefs which says nothing at all about their morals) with humanistic (a label that says a great deal about their morals). Communists are not humanists, as both would be very quick to tell you.
By humanist I mean where their politics and morals come from, other humans. Communists get their ideas from Marx. Fascists get theirs from their leaders. This is as opposed to theists whose politics and morals come from God or gods.


ed: I am referring primarily Christian political philosophy, other religion based societies can be just as bad as atheistic societies and in some cases much worse.

ia: Well, this is obviously false, as anyone can see from simply looking around the world. India, Japan and China are obviously not hellholes.
India and Japan were influenced by Christianity and Christian principles that is why they are not. I still stand by China being a high tech hellhole with little or no freedom or basic human rights.

ed: The US was better than modern day China 100 years ago. We had much more freedom and economic opportunity even for minorities. There was a significant population of black millionaires in the 1930s and 40s. There are no Muslim millionaires in China. Most of them are in concentration camps.

ia: First of all, conditions for the average Chinese person of today are much better than for US citizens a hundred years ago - if the US citizen of the 1920s that we're talking about it not a white male. You need to learn a bit of history about the obstacles that faced blacks, other non-whites and women in twentieth century.

Materially maybe but not in the area of human rights. Even blacks though segregated had thousands of their own businesses and made quite good money. They also had religious freedom and free speech neither of which China has today. They also could have as many children as they wanted while in China up until recently could only have one child.

ia: Second, China seems to be doing a lot better at the moment than the US is. Let's not go into details. I'm just sure that the average American would be very happy if their government could handle the current pandemic as well as China is - even if they wouldn't be happy about putting it in those terms.
Given that Communists lie by definition we have no idea what the infection and death rates are in China.

ed:But they both had signficant numbers of people working to make it better from the beginning because of their Christian principles. There was always a moral goal and objective standard to work for. No such thing exists in secular humanist nations and atheist nations. And we have reached many of those standards.

ia: You elected a career con man, a grifter, a thief, a sexual assaulter, and you did it with the enthusiastic backing of many of your Christians.
He has done none of those things since becoming president.

ed:Which ones were the most horrible in the history of the world? As I state above only Christian based societies have objective goals and standards by which they can strive to make themselves better and that has been occurring ever since they are founded especially in the US. There were significant numbers of people fighting against slavery from the first colonizers on.

ia: This is pretty rich, seeing how you've shown yourself unable to justify Christian moral standards except by the circular logic you promised you wouldn't use.
God being the essence good itself is not circular at all. As an atheist good and evil do not even exist in any real sense.

ed: No, mostly it was just a series of many wars. There was no preplanned extermination as there was with the holocaust. And that article falsely implies that Indian populations were reduced by millions because wars and mass slaughters. 80% of Native American deaths were caused by the unintentional spread of disease that they had no natural resistance to.

ia: Plenty of Indians were killed by war and mass slaughters. Any nation claiming to have superior ethical standards has a serious obstacle when it has the murder of innocents in its history. And not all of the spreading of disease was unintentional.
Plenty of whites were killed by war and mass slaughters committed by Indians. What innocents? Native Americans were far from innocents. Not only did they slaughter each other for thousands of years before the colonists arrived they also slaughtered many colonists. One isolated case of a rogue military officer giving small pox infected blankets to Indians is terrible but is practicially negligible compared the unintentional spreading of diseases.

ia: Look, I'm not saying the USA is not a great country, or that all of its sins are inexcusable. But you're trying to claim that the USA is an exemplar of morality, and it simply isn't, any more than any other flawed human country.
While it has had its periods of bad behavior, overall it is an exemplar of morality. Americans give more to charity than any other nation and more people have been given freedom and rescued from oppression and death by America than any other nation.

ed: Most of the larger ones resulted in or were attempted to providing freedom for millions. Some were stymied by mismanagement like Vietnam and a few others but overall the good accomplished far outweighs the bad.

ia: Good grief, you have a really simplistic and underdeveloped view of human history. America joined the Second World War because it was attacked, not (just) because it was the right thing to do. Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbour, America would very probably have left Hitler to get on with it.
I doubt it, though we probably would have gotten in late and therefore the war would have been much tougher and longer.

ia: The wars against Communism were precisely that - wars against Communism, out of fear that Russia would grow too powerful. Freeing oppressed peoples was always a side benefit.
Wars against Communism are wars to free the oppressed by definition.

ia: And in recent times, the USA has destabilised entire regions with unending and pointless wars.
Thousands of Muslim terrorists have been killed never to kill again. And evil dictators killed. Bush failed to understand that generally Muslim nations dont have the principles that can sustain a democracy. So he should have put benevolent dictators in their place.

ed: Nevertheless true and nothing like what China has done putting children in brainwashing concentration camps and using their parents for organ harvesting. Not to mention the millions of baby girls aborted.

ia: It's appalling that you can defend the practice of putting children into cages in which they were maltreated, abused and left to die. You're making the argument that the USA is not a moral paragon far better than I could.
Absurd, the so called cages had large screen TVs and video games and the children could play soccer outside pretty much anytime they wanted to. And if they didnt put them in these cages they would have to have let them go to wander the nation and be exposed to pedophiles and sex traffickers or otherwise they would have to have been in prison with their parents.

ed: The US economy is rebounding faster than any economy in history. 10 million new jobs created last month. Due to their extreme lack of transparency we have no idea how China is handling the crisis. You dont honestly think any of their numbers are accurate do you? Communist nations keep everyone in the dark by definition. Trying the stop the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children is hardly a heartless act.

ia: You honestly don't think the White House is telling you the truth, do you? The US economy is in serious trouble.
Yes, they have been one of the most transparent Administrations in recent American history. Much more so than the Obama administration. The stock market has been at very high levels even during the pandemic.

ia: And while I would not be surprised to learn that China is manipulating data, I might inform you that I am living here - and the situation is much, much better than the USA at present.
Basically, the Chinese government sensibly tackled the coronavirus and got it under control, while the US government, led by Donald Trump and the Rpeublicans, decided that a closed-sown economy was worse that 200, 000 + deaths.
Experts predicted initially that America would suffer 2 million deaths, but Trump by closing down travel from China and Europe saved thousands of lives possibly millions. Only having around 200,000 deaths after 7 months is actually quite remarkable for a nation as large and diverse as we are and that values freedom so much.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
They are atheistic in that they do not recognize the existence of any personal god. Some fascists' regimes like Nazi Germany recognized an impersonal pantheistic god but generally they do not. And they certainly do not recognize any moral code from a god, their moral code comes from humans.
We've been over this before. The fact that a person or a government does not believe in God tells you nothing at all about their moral code. They may be good, evil, or anywhere in between, just as a theist may.
Confucianism combined with their extremely homogeneous population has helped them to restrain their behavior. However, because of that they persecute religious people who dont go along their government philosophy and culture, such as serious Christians and Muslims. But their nation is a human right hell hole. Very little freedom at all. Plus using humans like they are material commodities. Plus their government has no moral standards at all.
It's obvious you know nothing of China other than what you've heard on right-wing radio. Why not take a tip from someone who actually lives here?
Yes, China has problems. Yes, some of those are human rights problems. Yes, its governments hands are far from clean. But this does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make it a hell hole.
No, because all humans are created in the image of the Christian God, when they make up their own religions they have some good qualities because of this inherent image.
Oh. Another unsubstantiated claim. You make things up an awful lot, do you know that?
No, I said depending on where the atheist was raised they can be evil and generally atheist leaders are evil. But not the ordinary atheist citizen. But over time since there is no moral anchor in God then an atheistic society goes down a slippery slope toward tyranny.
Nonsense. One quick search proves that wrong:
7 World Leaders Prove That America Can Have an Atheist President Too
Hardly. Europe has started banning public speech criticizing homosexuality and Islam among other things. So they are plainly losing free speech.
This is just ridiculous oversimplification and misunderstanding.
By humanist I mean where their politics and morals come from, other humans. Communists get their ideas from Marx. Fascists get theirs from their leaders. This is as opposed to theists whose politics and morals come from God or gods.
Do you? Well, stop it, please. Humanism has a very specific meaning:
Definition of humanist | Dictionary.com
"a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity."
Please use the actual definition, rather than making them up to suit yourself.
India and Japan were influenced by Christianity and Christian principles that is why they are not. I still stand by China being a high tech hellhole with little or no freedom or basic human rights.
Well, come and live here and you'll see you're wrong.
Materially maybe but not in the area of human rights. Even blacks though segregated had thousands of their own businesses and made quite good money. They also had religious freedom and free speech neither of which China has today. They also could have as many children as they wanted while in China up until recently could only have one child.
"Made quite good money," eh? How lucky for them.
By the way, ever hear of the American eugenics program?
Look. I'm not saying that America is a hellhole. Of course, it isn't. In many ways, America is a model of liberalism and democratic ideals, or at least the best this world has to offer. Having said that, it would be silly to ignore the huge mistakes America has made, its history of genocide, racism, class discrimination, warmongering and other evils. So if you're holding up America as a perfect society and China as a hellhole, you're quite simply wrong.
Given that Communists lie by definition we have no idea what the infection and death rates are in China.
Who told you Communists lie by definition? Of course they don't. And while the government of China may not be the most trustworthy source ever, I'd say it's a veritable fountain of truth compared to the current incumbent of the White House.
As far as the coronavirus goes, the Chinese government has been at least reasonably competent. Measures were taken to stop the spread of the virus, and they were effective. Again: take it from someone who lives here.
He has done none of those things since becoming president.
First of all, is that an admission that Donald Trump was all of those things before becoming the President? In which case, that's very nearly as bad.
However, since becoming President:
Con man? Check - see the Woodward tapes for confessions in his own voice as to how he misled the American people.
Grifter? Check. See the many times he has been scamming the American taxpayers - nepotism, emoluments, etc. etc.
Thief? Probably comes under the two above.
Sexual assaulter? Possibly not, during his time in office, but I wouldn't be surprised.
And let's add manslaughter to that, through negligence and wilful neglect. He knew the coronavirus was a terrible disease, and he just didn't care. All he focused on was the short-term damage if people thought there was a disease on the loose, and so he lied, and lied, and lied, and people died.
God being the essence good itself is not circular at all. As an atheist good and evil do not even exist in any real sense.
It's a perfect example of circular logic. I think it's terribly funny how you keep saying I can't tell the difference between good and evil, when the truth is, you're far more vulnerable to the charge yourself.
Plenty of whites were killed by war and mass slaughters committed by Indians. What innocents? Native Americans were far from innocents. Not only did they slaughter each other for thousands of years before the colonists arrived they also slaughtered many colonists. One isolated case of a rogue military officer giving small pox infected blankets to Indians is terrible but is practicially negligible compared the unintentional spreading of diseases.
Ah. So two wrongs make a right, do they? Is this Christian morality? "They did it as well, so it wasn't bad" is it? You're doing a great job at painting America as being a morally superior nation.
While it has had its periods of bad behavior, overall it is an exemplar of morality. Americans give more to charity than any other nation and more people have been given freedom and rescued from oppression and death by America than any other nation.
I'm glad to hear you admit that America has had periods of bad behaviour. But if you think you can just brush centuries (up to and including the present day) of systemic racism under the carpet, you're quite mistaken.
I doubt it, though we probably would have gotten in late and therefore the war would have been much tougher and longer.
Again: the US entered the war because they were attacked. Hardly the most high-minded of moral principles.
Wars against Communism are wars to free the oppressed by definition.
Of course they're not. It's quite possible to enter a war against a morally reprehensible power for reasons other than helping their subject peoples.
Thousands of Muslim terrorists have been killed never to kill again. And evil dictators killed. Bush failed to understand that generally Muslim nations don't have the principles that can sustain a democracy. So he should have put benevolent dictators in their place.
I think I've indulged your simplistic political ideas for long enough at this point.
Absurd, the so called cages had large screen TVs and video games and the children could play soccer outside pretty much anytime they wanted to. And if they didnt put them in these cages they would have to have let them go to wander the nation and be exposed to pedophiles and sex traffickers or otherwise they would have to have been in prison with their parents.
Yuck. How horrible.
The horrifying conditions facing kids in border detention, explained
"At any given time, for the past several weeks, more than 2,000 children have been held in the custody of US Border Patrol without their parents. Legally, they’re not supposed to be held by border agents for more than 72 hours before being sent to the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for finding their nearest relative in the US to house them while their immigration cases are adjudicated.
In practice, they’re being held for days, sometimes weeks, in facilities without enough food or toothbrushes — going days without showering, overcrowded and undercared for."
Yes, they have been one of the most transparent Administrations in recent American history. Much more so than the Obama administration. The stock market has been at very high levels even during the pandemic.
Oh dear...
The Trump Administration has not been one of the most transparent administrations in recent history. It's been one of the most porous. In other words, its composed almost solely of lying liars, but this is counterbalanced by the incredible amount of leaking that goes on.
Experts predicted initially that America would suffer 2 million deaths, but Trump by closing down travel from China and Europe saved thousands of lives possibly millions. Only having around 200,000 deaths after 7 months is actually quite remarkable for a nation as large and diverse as we are and that values freedom so much.
Here's a tip - don't believe everything Donald Trump says. Hate to break it to you, but it's not always true.
Donald Trump closing down travel from China and Europe was largely ineffective. And no, 200, 000 + deaths is not remarkable, it's catastrophic. Take a look at how other nations around the world are doing. Plenty of them have implemented sensible precautions - masks, tracing, restricting travel - and as a result the coronavirus has been contained. In America, it is rampant. You have politicians, including the President himself, who have spent months telling the American people to go out, go to school, go to parties and shopping and not wear masks.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site 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
T Communists get their ideas from Marx. Fascists get theirs from their leaders. This is as opposed to theists whose politics and morals come from God or gods.
How do you know that Moses and Jeremiah got their morals from God? Because they told you so? There were a lot of people claiming to be getting their morals from God. Do you agree with all their morals? If not, why do you trust Moses and Jeremiah, but not some of the others?

Your responses to this question have been weak. You have claimed historical accuracy for the Bible. So what? Lots of books have accurate history. If I find a book with accurate history, can I know that this book has infallible morals?

And sadly, the Bible is often far from historical.

You have also tried to claim that, since science advanced in countries with a Christian background, therefore the Bible has infallible morals. Science developed mostly during the daytime. Does this prove that sunlight is holy? Science developed mostly in the northern hemisphere. Does this prove the North Pole is infallible? Early science was developed predominantly by males. Does this mean that males have perfect morals? Those are the kinds of conclusions one would reach if he used the logic, "Science developed in situation X, therefore situation X is infallible."

What about the commands in the Bible that are not good? Luke 6:30 says to give to every man that asks of you. Do you think this command is infallible? Or is it OK to let common sense limit the application of this verse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
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 said:

See above about 10 million new jobs. Biden will reduce our First and Second Amendment rights, he has admitted it.

ia: I doubt Joe Biden will reduce the First Amendment rights. Donald Trump, on the other hand, would very much like to eliminate them altogether, as he has said many times.
He has already endorsed forcing Christians to bake cakes with messages that go against their religious beliefs and forcing Christians to provide abortions for their employees. Where has Trump said he wants to eliminate our First Amendment rights?

ia: And I doubt Joe Biden will reduce Second Amendment rights as much as they need to be reduced.
He has already said he wants Beto O Rourke on his cabinet who has said blatantly he wants to confiscated Americans guns that are used for self defense.

ed: No, I am right as demonstrated in this post and my earlier ones.

ia: If you do wish to argue that the American system is a beacon of morality, I could get behind that. But it's a humanistic one. It's a system that was set up, by people and for people, not based on religious creeds, but based on analysis of the type of government that works best, by and for the people, learning from history to avoid oppression and tyranny of dictators, monarchs and religious warfare. Take a look at the ideals of the Founding Fathers as expressed in the kind of country they wished to build, and you'll find it in direct line with the beliefs and values of humanists - freedom, liberty, democracy.
No, I demonstrated that it recognizes a higher law, the laws of Nature and the law of Natures God as stated in DOI. Even MLK recognized this, read his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He states that without Gods law we cannot judge mans law.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site 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
He has already endorsed forcing Christians to bake cakes with messages that go against their religious beliefs and forcing Christians to provide abortions for their employees. Where has Trump said he wants to eliminate our First Amendment rights?


He has already said he wants Beto O Rourke on his cabinet who has said blatantly he wants to confiscated Americans guns that are used for self defense.


No, I demonstrated that it recognizes a higher law, the laws of Nature and the law of Natures God as stated in DOI. Even MLK recognized this, read his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He states that without Gods law we cannot judge mans law.
I think perhaps that you should be more careful what you post on the Internet. Otherwise, some people might read this, and think that you want the deranged man in the White House to stay.

I think you mischaracterize Biden's LGBTQ policy and gun policy.

But even if you disagree with Biden's policies, how can that be more important than the continued existence of America? Trump has taken America from the dominant player in the international community to a source of derision. His abandonment of the Iran agreement and the climate agreement have caused immense harm. His downplaying of NATO puts us all at risk. Other countries have lost so much faith in us that they no longer line up to buy U S debt. Now, the number one means of financing our debt is by literally printing the money. This can not go on. If other countries abandon the dollar, abandon our alliances, and go out on their own without us, I fear for America.

When he got elected once, people shook their heads in sorrow. "Wow! That was odd." But if it happens again who would possibly want to trust us?
 
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
ed: That is what the fossil record confirms no transition forms between the two.

Huh? I pointed out to you that there were no creatures with a notochord. Then we have a simple creature with a notochord. Then we have creatures with developments of that notochord leading to backbones and vertebrates. Why is that not an intermediate?
There are no creatures with a partially developed notochord. Why is that? No transitional pre-notochords. A transitional between a notochord and a backbone would be non functional and the organism would not survive.

ed: They walked upright more than chimps but they were not obligate upright walkers like humans. They still walked on all fours at times. This has been confirmed by anthropologists.

ia: Ah, so australopithecine were intermediate between animals that walked on all four and animals that walked upright. Yes, I agree. There is another intermediate for you.
There may be an intermediate mode of locomotion but that is not a key feature of humans. But the key anatomical feature of hominids is the brain. Australopithicus brain is the same size as chimpanzees, then there is a huge gap up to the early human homo erectus (which is really just a race of homo sapiens because there is evidence of interbreeding) which is already in the normal size range for homo sapiens.

ed: So in geological time if homo habilis was ancestral it should have been out competed and gone extinct. But it didnt so it is unlikely to be an ancestor.

ia: That is simply not true. Many ancestral species have survived long after another species evolved from them.
Not if they occupy the same ecological niche. The more advanced form replaces the primitive form, but that didnt happen here. Organisms that are directly ancestral occupy the same ecological niche that is how evolution progresses.
 
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
There is much evidence for human evolution. A good overview was on the PBS series, "Becoming Human." This series was the basis of much of what I wrote in the opening post in the human evolution thread.

Regarding the evidence that the brain of the Australopithecus was more human-like in structure than ape brains, see Posterior lunate sulcus in Australopithecus africanus: was Dart right? - ScienceDirect .
But that is africanus, the so-called human line goes thru afarensis. So the wrong one has the so-called human like brain in your article. And their brain size is in the chimp range not human. A 2007 paper in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, states that the "gorilla like anatomy of afarensis mandibles casts doubt on its role as a modern human ancestor." So for both species the evidence shows they are unlikely to be human ancestors.
 
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
There is no assumption other than human beings are subjects, and can therefore have subjective experiences.
No, how come you dont treat other animals equal to humans? Aren't you guilty of speciesism if you dont treat them the same as humans or treat humans the same as animals? There is no real reason to treat humans as valuable or special. Again this is irrational if atheistic evolution is true.
 
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, His goodness is confirmed by the truthfulness of His word as many things in it have been confirmed by science and history and it is also confirmed by the experiences of the people who know Him.

ia: This is no use to you, I'm afraid. You're trying to build a logical argument, not argue in favour of God's character. You have to prove that your statement, that God is goodness itself, makes sense, and saying that God has told us the truth gets you absolutely nowhere.
Showing that His character is good and is recognized as such is evidence for Him being goodness itself. And being truthful is also a characteristic of goodness. Personal beings act according to their character they generally do not act against their character so it is unlikely He would command something evil.

ed: We were designed to recognize goodness when we see it and experience it so when we have a relationship with God, His goodness is confirmed to us. Actually You can work out a system of morality for your self but it will not be objectively based because it will just be based on your feelings and subjective opinion. Only Christian morality has an objective foundation, ie the objectively existing moral character of the Creator.

ia: More circular reasoning. How do we know that God is good? Because He designed us to know that He is good. You say that Christianity has an objective moral foundation, but you can't prove it.
Personal beings recognize good because they have a moral conscience. Otherwise they are not fully personal beings. Yes, I can demonstrate that the Christian God most likely exists, therefore His objective moral character exists providing us with an objective foundation for morality.

ed: Fraid not. But there is other evidence the universe is created by a personal being, the existence of purposes. Purposes exist in this universe and we know that only persons can create purposes for things.

ia: First of all - is that true? Does the tree not have a purpose, or the mouse? Do the squirrels not have a purpose, or the daisies? I think you could convincingly argue that all living things have a purpose, which is to stay safe, continue living as long as possible, and produce offspring (although thinking creatures such as ourselves can override that last purpose if we wish).
Second, let's say that what you are saying is true - that only personal beings can create purposes. Okay. Again, fine. I know lots of personal beings (persons) and many of them have purposes. Some of them they created by themselves, some purposes were thrust on them, in some way, by society. This is an interesting question that we are not really concerned with at the moment. The point is, the existence of personal beings having purposes in their lives is in no way an argument for God's existence. Indeed, it seems mundane in the extreme.
No, if ANY purposes exist in the universe then the cause of the universe must be personal. Yes, all creatures have purposes and even the structures that make up organisms have purposes, such as ears for hearing and eyes for seeing.

ed: I am referring to the ultimate cause not the process. Evolution may be the process God used to create persons but personal beings still require an ultimate personal cause as I have demonstrated above. If evolution is guided purely by natural selection then it is self refuting because natural selection only selects for survivability not truth. Therefore, you can never say that evolution is true with any rational basis because our brains were not selected for recognizing truth.

ia: You ask me why I say you're wrong. Well, this paragraph is a prime example. Ed, what are you talking about?
Take a look at what you said. It's probably simpler if I just interject comments:
I am referring to the ultimate cause not the process. So what? Evolution may be the process God used to create persons Yes, it may, but we have no reason to think that it is but personal beings still require an ultimate personal cause Why? as I have demonstrated above No, you haven't. If evolution is guided purely by natural selection then it is self refuting Not in the slightest because natural selection only selects for survivability not truth Accurately assessing your surroundings - recognising what is real, which is the basis of truth - is something very much selected for. An organism that was not able to react to the real world would not survive for very long. Therefore, you can never say that evolution is true with any rational basis because our brains were not selected for recognizing truth. Of course you can. And nothing you have said in any way contradicts the idea that evolution produced persons. Therefore, your idea that the existence of persons in this universe requires a personal force to have begun the universe is nonsense.
May I suggest you give this argument up? It's a dead horse right now, and you're trying to jump on it and ride off into the sunset.
No, a cockroach can hide under a shoe thinking it is a rock and it will survive just as well as it if it knew the truth that it was not under a rock. You can accurately assess your surroundings and still not recognize whether something is true or not like whether 2 plus 2 is 4 or whether the earth is round or flat or whether we evolved or not. None of those things increase survivability.
 
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

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,637
18,535
Orlando, Florida
✟1,260,418.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
No, how come you dont treat other animals equal to humans? Aren't you guilty of speciesism if you dont treat them the same as humans or treat humans the same as animals? There is no real reason to treat humans as valuable or special. Again this is irrational if atheistic evolution is true.

Do you know what a Gish Gallup is? There are so many unquestioned assumptions hidden in your statements here, I wouldn't know where to begin.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Showing that His character is good and is recognized as such is evidence for Him being goodness itself.
Not good enough, I'm afraid. You said that you could logically prove that you had a rational foundation for an objective morality. Saying, "Hey, God has done good things and He tells us He's good" is not nearly enough. You need to have a logical proof.
And being truthful is also a characteristic of goodness.
Is it? Is it always? Can you not think of any circumstances in which it would be a moral act to lie?
Personal beings act according to their character they generally do not act against their character so it is unlikely He would command something evil.
"Generally" . "Unlikely." These show that your argument is full of holes. This isn't proof in the slightest.
More than that, you have been offered a logical problem to solve. If you say that your morality is objectively sound because it is based on God, who is goodness itself, then you have to answer the question: what does it mean to say that God is goodness itself? Without any external standard to measure it against, it means absolutely nothing.

You've been asked before, and have failed to give a satisfactory answer: why shouldn't God commit what we call evil? Why shouldn't He lie, cheat, steal, murder, or encourage others to do these things?
If God is goodness itself, and the standard by which goodness is measured, what is to stop Him from doing any of these things? You say that God would not do these things, because they would be evil. But that's the problem - if God did them, they wouldn't be evil, because He is the standard by which you measure goodness. It's moral relativity taken to its logical extreme.

You've also said that God wouldn't do these things because He has previously said that He would not. But that means absolutely nothing. All you're doing is saying that God would not be inconsistent, because that would be wrong. But if God declares that inconsistency is good, then how can you - lacking any external standard - judge God as being anything other than wrong? You say that God wouldn't change His mind, because apparently you think that's something people don't do. First of all, of course they do; people have often been known to act against what we think of as their natures. And secondly, who is to say that God has not been lying to you all this time? You can't say He wouldn't lie because lying is bad, because God is the standard against which you judge good and bad, and so if He declares lying is good, then it is.

These are the questions you have to answer, and you have to answer them with logical arguments. Saying "God would never do such a thing," or "God said He would never do such a thing," or "My moral awareness lets me know when God is being good or bad," are just inadequate answers. You need to provide a logical argument, something you have failed to do so far.
Personal beings recognize good because they have a moral conscience. Otherwise they are not fully personal beings. Yes, I can demonstrate that the Christian God most likely exists, therefore His objective moral character exists providing us with an objective foundation for morality.
First, I very much doubt that you can demonstrate that the Christian God most likely exists. This is based on my not unextensive experience of Christian apologists, the Christian Forums website, and of you yourself.
But even if you could prove that God exists, that would in no way help you to resolve the logical problem: how can a morality based solely on God's character be proven to be objectively sound?
No, if ANY purposes exist in the universe then the cause of the universe must be personal.
Nonsense. Why would you imagine that?
Yes, all creatures have purposes and even the structures that make up organisms have purposes, such as ears for hearing and eyes for seeing.
Yes. And? Purpose is simply a consequence of life evolving. There's nothing magical about it, and certainly nothing that points to something apart from the universe existing.
No, a cockroach can hide under a shoe thinking it is a rock and it will survive just as well as it if it knew the truth that it was not under a rock. You can accurately assess your surroundings and still not recognize whether something is true or not like whether 2 plus 2 is 4 or whether the earth is round or flat or whether we evolved or not. None of those things increase survivability.
You're confusing knowledge with truth here. What evolution has given us, quite naturally, is an ability to sense the world around us and react to it. In organisms like us, that have evolved the ability to think, this has given us the ability to identify truth. It's not a foolproof ability, by any means, but it does mean that we can all agree that we live in a shared reality - not that truth is whatever we decide it is. If you think that, the perhaps you'd like to decide to step out of a third-floor window so you can float down like a bubble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doubtingmerle
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
He has already endorsed forcing Christians to bake cakes with messages that go against their religious beliefs and forcing Christians to provide abortions for their employees. Where has Trump said he wants to eliminate our First Amendment rights?
Goodness me, is that what you meant? Those tired old problems of bakers for gay weddings and support for abortion providers? Well, that raises my opinion of Joe Biden.
And are you not aware of the many times Donald Trump has threatened or violated First Amendment rights? He's done it an awful lot, you know.
He has already said he wants Beto O Rourke on his cabinet who has said blatantly he wants to confiscated Americans guns that are used for self defense.
That's nice. Good for them.
No, I demonstrated that it recognizes a higher law, the laws of Nature and the law of Natures God as stated in DOI. Even MLK recognized this, read his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He states that without Gods law we cannot judge mans law.
What he meant was that you should judge a law to see whether it is moral or not, and that a bad law is immoral, even if it is legal. I would say the same thing except, not being a Christian, I would not talk about "God's law." But I have no doubt that Martin Luther King would agree with me a lot more than he would agree with you.
But even if you disagree with Biden's policies, how can that be more important than the continued existence of America? Trump has taken America from the dominant player in the international community to a source of derision. His abandonment of the Iran agreement and the climate agreement have caused immense harm. His downplaying of NATO puts us all at risk. Other countries have lost so much faith in us that they no longer line up to buy U S debt. Now, the number one means of financing our debt is by literally printing the money. This can not go on. If other countries abandon the dollar, abandon our alliances, and go out on their own without us, I fear for America.
Well, exactly!
 
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
IF "God is goodness itself" is true, then either God is just a symbol for an abstract concept, or it's only true by way of analogy (and that even presupposes that analogy has a place in epistemology, something not all philosophers have agreed upon). Or a third possibility, that's "God is goodness itself" is a rhetorical slogan that is a statement of value and not fact.
No, a being can be the essence of something, God is the essence of goodness.
 
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: In Thessalonians he refers to people that constantly rejected God and His law, so after doing this constantly for an extended period of time God sometimes causes you to forfeit your free will and God allows you to become deluded.
If Thessalonians had said God allows them the free will to choose delusion, I would have no problem with it. But that is not what it says. Again, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 says:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Sorry, but this verse has God playing an active role in sending them the delusion.

If your Bible says God sends delusions, I do not know how you can be sure he has not sent you a delusion.

Because He says He only sends a strong delusion after a period of willful rebellion and rejection of the truth. Just like He did with the Pharoah of the Exodus. He allowed his heart to harden, ie a loss of free will, and become trapped in their own sin. From my experience with Him I learn that He is truthful and trustworthy and is not deluding me.

ed: First you can see that many things in His word have been confirmed truthful by science and history.
dm: The question is how you know God is not deceptive. Claiming that he said some things that are truthful does not answer. It would be possible to be truthful in some things, while secretly trying to deceive.
Yes, it is possible but as you get to know someone you learn that they are truthful and trustworthy. So it is with God.

ed: Secondly then when you have a relationship with Him your experiences with Him also confirm His truthfulness.

dm: Ah, you get a feeling that he is truthful. How does this prove anything?
I never said we could prove He is with absolute certainty but just like you learn your wife or family is truthful to you and trustworthy, so it is with your relationship with God.

dm: Humans have become fairly good at determining who is lying to us. That is because we have big brains. And most of the reason for having those big brains is that they allow us to understand each other. But our brains are not infallible. Sometimes we think a person can be trusted, but they are not actually trustworthy. But in general, our big brains can understand each other, can talk to different people and get different perspectives, and can work out fairly accurately who is telling us the truth. But we sometimes are fooled. (Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.)

True but we also have a moral conscience, that helps to see who is good and trustworthy and who is evil and not to be trusted. So it is with God, we learn about His goodness and trusttworthiness thru our relationship with Him. I never said we can know He is good with absolute certainty, that is why it involves faith, just like any personal relationship.

dm: But how would you tell if an omnipotent God was lying to you? By definition, he would be capable of doing anything.
No, even an omnipotent being cannot go against their character if they are a personal being because personal beings have a moral character by definition and in additon, they cannot go against logic and cannot do what is logically impossible.

dm: Even if his powers were limited, it doesn't seem that difficult for the God depicted by Christians to be powerful enough to create a delusion that fooled everybody. How could you possibly know that it will not end when he reveals it was all a big joke he was playing on you? How would anybody figure out that this was happening?
See above about personal relationships and faith.

dm: The point is that your reliance on God as your source of morality is based on little. You have no way of knowing what God says. (And no, saying that science came from countries with a Christian background is not proof that God wrote the Bible.)
It is evidence that He is good, because of all the good that science has given to humans. If He was not good, he would have made sure that science never came into existence and especially made sure it was not invented by His followers.

dm: Even if you know what God says--because you read it in the Bible--you have no way of knowing for sure that a deity is telling you the truth. And even if you know for sure that you have the truth, which he told you, what does it even mean to say his morality is good? If good is defined as "whatever God is", then saying God is good mean nothing. All you are saying is that God is what he is.
See above about how we learn that someone is a good person. I am not saying we know for certain, but we know He is good as well as you know that your wife loves you.
 
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
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, a being can be the essence of something, God is the essence of goodness.
That sounds extremely dubious. Is it possible for a person to be the essence of "something"? Of ugliness, or of mathematics, or of wisdom?
But okay - God is presented as a supernatural being. Let's grant, for now, that He can be the essence of goodness.

In that case, what does this mean?
That God only does good things? That anything God does is good? That God is the measuring stick by which we judge what is good or not? That God tells us and/or shows us what goodness means?
But in that case, how will you know what goodness is? Your standard of goodness is "What God says is good."How can you tell that what God says is good, is in fact good?

Let me ask you - if God did a bad thing, how would you know?How would you say "I have looked at this action, and it is bad or immoral," or "I know God would not do such a thing, because it would be bad or immoral, and God would never do such a thing."

Let's say God lied, or raped, or murdered. Would you say "God did a bad thing" if He did that? How could you? By definition - your definition - anything God does is good.

Would you answer that God would never do a bad thing like this? But the thing is, if He did it, it wouldn't be bad, would it? Again, by your definition.

Would you answer that God told you He would never do such a thing, so He wouldn't? And that God would never change his mind? But if He changed His mind, it would mean changing your mind is a good thing. How could you say otherwise? By what means would you judge God?

Don't you see, this is moral relativism at its logical extreme.

Because He says He only sends a strong delusion after a period of willful rebellion and rejection of the truth.
He said that, did He? You're talking about a person and saying you know this person tells you the truth because this person assured you that He doesn't lie?
Do you see the logical problem with that?
How do you know God wasn't lying when He assured you He wouldn't lie to you?

Yes, it is possible but as you get to know someone you learn that they are truthful and trustworthy. So it is with God.
Okay - you've said that it is possible that God could, in fact, be being deceptive with you. Thank you for that admission.
In that case, how would you learn that He is trustworthy?
Remember, God is a being of incredible abilities. Of course He could fool you if He wanted to.

I never said we could prove He is with absolute certainty
You said that you could prove that God was good with absolute certainty. Now it appears that you can't. Because, when presented with a logical argument showing the mistake in defining God as the essence of goodness, your response is to say that you have learned to trust Him, but that you admit you can't be certain that you are right about Him.

True but we also have a moral conscience, that helps to see who is good and trustworthy and who is evil and not to be trusted.
How do you know that your moral conscience is trustworthy? How do you know your sense of right and wrong is accurate?
Either (a) it was given to you by God, which means you are now committing the logical fallacy of begging the question, as you are attempting to use the moral sense that came from God to prove that God is good.
Or (b) your sense of right and wrong was developed naturally, in which case you are wrong about God being the foundation of morality, since you didn't need God in order to be able to tell right from wrong.

No, even an omnipotent being cannot go against their character if they are a personal being because personal beings have a moral character by definition and in additon, they cannot go against logic and cannot do what is logically impossible.
Who asked God to do anything logically impossible? that's a strawman argument.

And people act out of character all the time. Nothing strange about that.
Also, as I said earlier, maybe God is pretending to have a good character; maybe He's been deceptive all along.

It is evidence that He is good, because of all the good that science has given to humans. If He was not good, he would have made sure that science never came into existence and especially made sure it was not invented by His followers.
None of that makes sense in the slightest. What about all the bad that has come about through science - the pollution, the wars and weapons, the dangers and difficulties? And are you saying that God can override people's free will and so prevent them from doing certain things, like creating inventions?

The existence of Science is not proof of anything - not that God is good, not that God is truthful, and certainly not that God exists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site 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, you keep writing about evolution, but you still haven't told us your alternative. You appear to reject both evolution and young earth creation. OK. How do you think it happened? Can you give us an alternative that you think is more likely than evolution?

But that is africanus, the so-called human line goes thru afarensis. So the wrong one has the so-called human like brain in your article.

Uh, most likely neither was our direct ancestor. Evolution branched in many directions. There are at least 7 known species that are classed in the genus australopitchicus, including the two you mentioned. There may have been many others. One of those species was probably our ancestor. Or maybe the direct line came through a cousin of the Australopithicus. We don't know.

The point is that there is fossil evidence in the Australopithicus genus that some had a brain structured in a way that is characteristic of humans. This could indicate that many of the cousin species of the two you mentioned also had this feature.

That is an intermediate feature. Among creatures several million years ago, there were creatures that were partly equipped for upright walking, and had a brain feature characteristic of humans.

And their brain size is in the chimp range not human.
Of course not. Can you imagine if a small ape gave birth to a child with a brain in the human range. Pity that poor mother!

But as I describe in the opening post at the thread we discussed, there were a number of steps that led up to the point where it was possible to have larger brains. One of those steps was likely the organization of the brain in such a way that creatures relied more heavily on cognition. This led to social support and advances that allowed future generations to get the adaption of prolonged brain growth after birth.

After the process got started, there were incremental increases in brain size.

b9d28f2b82548f702e0b7909bf30f6ba.gif
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site 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 see you still have not come up with an alternative to evolution. You appear to deny both evolution and young earth creation. What do you believe? Please give me a view that fits the available data better than evolution.

There are no creatures with a partially developed notochord. Why is that? No transitional pre-notochords. A transitional between a notochord and a backbone would be non functional and the organism would not survive.
You said you wanted a transitional. I gave you one, a simple creature with a notochord. Now what? You want one with half a notochord. And if I showed you that you would want one with 25% of a notochord and 75%.

That simply is not what we would expect to find. The fossil record is limited. But what we find is consistent with evolution.

Is it consistent with your view? Nobody will ever know, because you will not tell us your view.

Not if they occupy the same ecological niche. The more advanced form replaces the primitive form, but that didnt happen here. Organisms that are directly ancestral occupy the same ecological niche that is how evolution progresses.

Its a big planet. There are plenty of ecological niches out there. Speciation occurs regularly, with the parent species and the new species both surviving.
 
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
It's worse than that, if you take Calvinism seriously, it is within God's rights to deceive anyone he chooses. It is only by God's "good pleasure" that anyone is saved, after all. That means that will has primacy over nature, within this particular late medieval Occamism that influenced much of Protestant thought.
No, God cannot deceive anyone unless they have already chosen to turn away from the truth of their own free will. Deceiving people goes against His moral character and He cannot do that.

fd: And that, in the end, means that we can only go by faith, and not certainty, in our statements that God is truly "good". God may merely appear to be good, willing in his secrete council evil. That's why ultimately most Protestants come down to some form of fideism (conservatives) or pragmatic epistemology (if they are liberals).
No, just like any personal relationship you can learn by experience whether the person is good and trustworthy and that has been the case in my relationship with God and all Christians who trust God.

fd: And it's at this point that the uneasy union between Christian mythological narrative and it's Neo-Platonist philosophical assumptions start to break down (and most Christian arguments for God are simply plagiarized from Neo-Platonism, wedded to bronze age mythology that equates a tribal Midianite deity, Jehovah, with the Monad, the supreme transcendent principle of reality). Because Neo-Platonism is a real thing in its own right, and simply doesn't need the dross of mythology to justify it philosophically.
No, mine and the best Christian arguments for the existence of the Christian God are based on science and logic.
 
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
Merle, you've hit the nutshell on the head!

@Ed1wolf , please pay attention. You are the one who said you could logically justify your understanding of morality by basing it on God. Merle and I have patiently pointed out the problem with this to you time and again. A person with intellectual integrity would now admit that they were in the wrong. Or, at the very least, how about saying that we have given you something to think about, and you'll have to consider it?
No, I said only Christians have a rationally objective moral standard. We know God is good from our experience with Him, just like any other relationship.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.