Where's God?

doubtingmerle said:

ed: I said His moral character is good

dm: Define "good". If "good" means "whatever God is", all you are saying here is that his character is what it is.

Click to expand...

Good is that which reflects the nature and character of God.

ed: Our way of knowing whether He is morally good is exactly the same way you tell whether your wife is morally good. From experience.

dm: Define "good". Are you saying that God is whatever God is, or you saying that God conforms to some other standard of goodness?

Click to expand...

God conforms to His nature and character.

ed: Just as you would not act against your character, so neither would God.

dm: Ah, so God is not powerful enough to deceive you?

Click to expand...

Correct, He cannot do evil and He also cannot go against logic.

dm: That's odd, I would have thought an all powerful God would be able to outsmart you.

Click to expand...

Of course, He is much more intelligent than we are but He is morally perfect and therefore would never deceive us.

ed: We know He is telling the truth because many things in His word have been shown to be true by history and science.

dm: What about all the things in the Bible that are clearly false, like the claim that the earth had flooded, for instance?

Click to expand...

Actually while not a great deal of evidence for the flood because it occurred 2 mya and most of it has eroded away, there is evidence for the flood.

dm: Define "good". If "good" means "whatever God is", all you are saying here is that his character is what it is.

Ed1wolf said:

Good is that which reflects the nature and character of God.

Click to expand...

Just as @doubtingmerle said. This is circular thinking.

dm: Define "good". Are you saying that God is whatever God is, or you saying that God conforms to some other standard of goodness?

Ed1wolf said:

God conforms to His nature and character.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that God is whatever God is.

Ed1wolf said:

Of course, He is much more intelligent than we are but He is morally perfect and therefore would never deceive us.

Click to expand...

I know you're either not listening or not understanding to any of this, but you've just made the same mistake again.
If God did deceive you, then deceiving you would be a good act, because God did it and - as we've established many, many times by now - you have no independent standard against which to judge God. Whatever He does, you must say it is good, by your own admission.

Ed1wolf said:

Actually while not a great deal of evidence for the flood because it occurred 2 mya and most of it has eroded away, there is evidence for the flood.

Click to expand...

As soon as you admit to being a creationist, you lose.
Which is probably why you're usually quite careful about not letting your creationist views slip out.

doubtingmerle said:

That simply is not true. The sun transfers energy to the earth, increasing the entropy of the earth. But the earth transfer that same energy into outer space, decreasing the net entropy of the earth by more than the amount that the sun increased it. This decreases the net entropy of the earth.

And yes, the entropy decrease is long term. And no, the entropy decrease does not requires intelligent intervention.


It is a wrong observation. In an open system, such as a planet, there can be continuous long term decrease in entropy without intelligent intervention.

Click to expand...

Evidence?

doubtingmerle said:

Books like Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua have basically been totally discredited as historical.

Click to expand...

No, except for Genesis, there is evidence that they were written near the time when the events occurred. And Genesis shows evidence of the author having knowledge of the patriarchal time period. Unlike the time that the liberals say it was written that the writers could not have known about.

dm: Uh, you can trace the dates from Noah to historical events and that yields a result of about 5000 years. Estimates vary a few years because the dates are contradictory, but all attempts to date the earth based on the literal text of scripture come out less than 6000 years. See the bottom of The World: Born in 4004 BC? for a list of verses that show this.

Click to expand...

No, they fail to understand how ancient genealogies were kept and also the phrase usually translated "the son of" has a much more broad meaning in the original hebrew, and can mean ancestor of. So contrary to fundamentalists and atheists it is not so clear cut.

dm: Also Genesis describes a flood that covered the whole earth. A local flood 2 million years ago is not the same as a global flood.

Click to expand...

Some scholars believe it was local and there is some evidence in the hebrew that it might be but I believe it was worldwide and there is evidence it was worldwide around 2 mya. Though not a great deal of evidence since most of it has eroded away in 2 million years.

doubtingmerle said:

ed: natural selection cannot produce humans that can recognize truth.

dm: Actually it can.

Click to expand...

How can it when it only selects for survivability not truth recognition? You dont need to know that 2 + 2 = 4 is a true math statement to survive. Every other species of animal has done quite well without being able to recognize truth.

doubtingmerle said:

As hominids advanced, there were ever greater pressures to have even more brainpower. Eventually there was evolutionary pressure to favor those that could, for instance, calculate the tide schedule, so they could leave the safety of their caves only when the tides was right to gather shellfish.

Click to expand...

What is evolutionary pressure? Isn’t is just that mutations are totally random, and whichever random mutations do well in a certain environment it will simply be a numbers game, the better mutations will live, and therefore procreate better than the poorer mutations? “Evolutionary pressure“ just screams teleology. It seems to me that a lot of species have some sort of innate ability to just do things correctly in nature, and this ability has no relation to human type intelligence. They just know what to do. What separates “Instinct” from “Brainpower based actions” as far as survival in nature goes?

InterestedAtheist said:

Of course it can.

Click to expand...

How? To natural selection whether something is true or not is irrelevant, Natural selection is "blind" to truth, what is relevant is whether a characteristic increases survivability. They are not the same thing.

InterestedAtheist said:

Did he? Okay.
I have a quote from John Smith who said "Loren Eisely was wrong about what Ed1wolf said he said."
In other words, empty claims meaning nothing; you have to provide evidence. Yes, science came about "in the Christian world" because Christianity was the dominant religion at the time that science was invented. But in what way does that show that Christianity caused the invention of science?

Click to expand...

Because only Christianity taught that there is an objective reality that operates according to intelligible rational laws by an intelligent creator thereby allowing the systematic study of His creation. In addition, His word teaches that we can learn more about Him by studying His creation. This inspired Christians to study nature and invent the modern form of science, the ongoing systematic self correcting study of nature.

Ed1wolf said:

How? To natural selection whether something is true or not is irrelevant, Natural selection is "blind" to truth, what is relevant is whether a characteristic increases survivability. They are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

Of course whether something is true or not is irrelevant to natural selection. How could it be otherwise, and who said it was? Natural selection is a blind, non-conscious phenomenon.
And of course being able to recognise the truth is a characteristic that increases survivability. If you are being chased by a hungry tiger it increases your chances of survivability to be able to recognise that. Quite simply, being aware of what is real and what is not is a useful survival trait.

Ed1wolf said:

Because only Christianity taught that there is an objective reality that operates according to intelligible rational laws by an intelligent creator thereby allowing the systematic study of His creation. In addition, His word teaches that we can learn more about Him by studying His creation. This inspired Christians to study nature and invent the modern form of science, the ongoing systematic self correcting study of nature.

Click to expand...

As @doubtingmerle said, this is nonsense. It's obvious to anyone who looks at the world that we can learn about it. Humans have been doing that as long as humanity existed. Great discoveries took place before, outside and within Christianity. Just because James Watt or Sir Francis Bacon or Charles Darwin lived in a country where most people were Christians, doesn't mean Christianity gets to take the credit for their creative thinking. This is just retroactive Christian editing.

InterestedAtheist said:

ed: No, see my previous post where I demonstrated it is not a contradiction. Three in person, one in divinity, similar to you and your wife, two in person and one in your humanity.

ia: But you didn't demonstrate it. My wife and I may be "one" in our humanity, but we're not one person. Now if you want to say that God the Father, God the Son and Gold the Holy Spirit are three persons who have a relationship with each other, then they would be like me and my wife. But you're not saying that. you're saying that I and my wife are one person, which is obviously untrue.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a mental block in understanding the difference between humanity and persons. And the difference between divinity and persons. Humanity and divinity are essences or substances. You and your wife are two persons but are composed of the same single essence or substance. God is three persons but is also composed of the same single essence or substance, divinity. Now do you understand? And I said while marriage and the trinity are similar they are not identical. And neither is contradictory as I have demonstrated. And yes all three persons of the Godhead have a relationship with each other.
↑

ed: No, it comes from the science of psychology which studies God's other book nature.

ia: Where in the Bible does it say that children under the age of 7-10 do not go to hell?

Click to expand...

While not explicit, it is implied in 2 Samuel 12:23 and Matthew 19:14. In addition, we know from history that the jews believed that children prior to puberty were not considered adults and therefore were not morally accountable. And as I stated above recent research on childrens ability to understand moral decision making goes back even further to around 7-10.
↑

ed: You have yet to prove it.

ia: No, you have yet to prove it.

Click to expand...

You are the one claiming I am making things up. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.↑

ed: This is the only slightly unorthodox interpretation I have presented. Everything else I have presented has been identical for the majority of orthodox Christians for 2000 years.

ia: Nonsense. You said that there are different levels of hell. Where in the Bible does it say that?

Click to expand...

See where I quoted Christ about the day of judgement for Sodom as compared to Bethsaida.
↑

ed: On other more essential issues it can be demonstrated who is right by using the grammatico-historical context.

ia: Then do so.

Click to expand...

I have done so.
↑

ed: If the establishment at the time had been secular humanist they would have no rationally objective basis for punishing him at all however. And if he had very good lawyers, he might well have gotten off. How can you punish someone just for different chemicals in his brain causing him to do these things? Because he has no real free will if matter and energy is all that exists.

ia: The establishment at that time was secular humanist. The laws under which Hitler would have been punished had no reliance upon Christianity at all.

Click to expand...

You are right that majority was secular humanist at the time, that is why they had no rational objective basis for condemning the Nazis or Hitler had he survived. I notice you didnt answer my question. is it because you cant provide a rational answer?
↑

ed: I disagree. that verse I quoted is not the only verse that teaches different levels of hell. Where do you think Dante got his idea? He got it from the bible.

ia: Quotes, please

Click to expand...

I did. Here is more:
1. Matthew 23:14 “”How terrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows’ houses and say long prayers to cover it up. Therefore, you will receive greater condemnation!

2. Luke 12:47-48 That servant who knew what his master wanted but didn’t prepare himself or do what was wanted will receive a severe beating. But the servant who did things that deserved a beating without knowing it will receive a light beating. Much will be required from everyone to whom much has been given. But even more will be demanded from the one to whom much has been entrusted.”

3. Matthew 10:14-15 If anyone doesn’t welcome you or listen to what you say, leave that house or city, and shake its dust off your feet. I can guarantee this truth: Judgment day will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that city.

4. Luke 10:14-15 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.

5. James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more severely than others.

6. 2 Peter 2:20-22 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

7. John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Ed1wolf said:

You seem to have a mental block in understanding the difference between humanity and persons. And the difference between divinity and persons. Humanity and divinity are essences or substances. You and your wife are two persons but are composed of the same single essence or substance. God is three persons but is also composed of the same single essence or substance, divinity. Now do you understand?

Click to expand...

Of course I understand. You believe in three different Gods. Not very Christian of you, but its your choice, of course. You've told us this many times.
And no, my wife and I are not composed of the same essence or substance, unless you mean we are both human beings, which I suppose we are.
You've been trying to reconcile God being one and three at the same time now for quite some time. Are you now beginning to see how contradictory these two ideas are?

Ed1wolf said:

While not explicit, it is implied in 2 Samuel 12:23 and Matthew 19:14. In addition, we know from history that the jews believed that children prior to puberty were not considered adults and therefore were not morally accountable. And as I stated above recent research on childrens ability to understand moral decision making goes back even further to around 7-10.

Click to expand...

Since you're dealing with religion, common sense doesn't mean much, I'm afraid. There are plenty of your fellow Christians who will tell you that a human being is sinful from the moment they are born, if not before. I understand that's an unpleasant idea, and that it's helpful to say that innocent children will not be sent to hell, but wishing doesn't make it so.

Ed1wolf said:

You are the one claiming I am making things up. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.↑

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you to back it up. All I am doing is pointing this out.

Ed1wolf said:

You are right that majority was secular humanist at the time, that is why they had no rational objective basis for condemning the Nazis or Hitler had he survived. I notice you didnt answer my question. is it because you cant provide a rational answer?

Click to expand...

No, but the answer - the basis of an atheist's morality - would be off topic. If you'd like to start a thread about it I'd be happy to accommodate you.

Ed1wolf said:

I did. Here is more:
1. Matthew 23:14 “”How terrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows’ houses and say long prayers to cover it up. Therefore, you will receive greater condemnation!

2. Luke 12:47-48 That servant who knew what his master wanted but didn’t prepare himself or do what was wanted will receive a severe beating. But the servant who did things that deserved a beating without knowing it will receive a light beating. Much will be required from everyone to whom much has been given. But even more will be demanded from the one to whom much has been entrusted.”

3. Matthew 10:14-15 If anyone doesn’t welcome you or listen to what you say, leave that house or city, and shake its dust off your feet. I can guarantee this truth: Judgment day will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that city.

4. Luke 10:14-15 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.

5. James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more severely than others.

6. 2 Peter 2:20-22 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

7. John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Click to expand...

Well, after reading these it seems clearer than ever. Look, you can believe what you want, of course. and if your religion wants to say that there are forty-seven levels of hell, and describe each of them in detail, it can. I'm just pointing out that you're building up your ideas based on nothing much, and this just confirms it. What do you know from these? Several of them read like they're just speaking in metaphors, others might - for all we know - be referring to punishment in this world; and they're all so vague as to mean almost anything.