Where's God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
Yes but that is just your subjective opinion. Ultimately, one tiny bag of fluids destroying millions of little bags of fluids on a tiny rock in a giant universe means nothing if there is no God.
If Hitler kills millions of people it matters to me.

Does it mean nothing to you?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
dm: I use my brain.
Ed: So did Mengele.

Our creator has told us what is best for us.
Uh huh, and did you use your brain to figure out that the creator told us what is best for us?

Once again:

cutting-the-branch-your-sitting-on-KYR6RA.jpg


I find it odd that one would use his brain to write posts that tell us not to use our brain, because, after all, Mengele used his and look where that got him.
 
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
See my response at The Holocaust was Wrong .In this thread I am going to argue for the thesis that the Holocaust was wrong.

It feels odd to need to make this thread. I think the overwhelming majority here agree with me: The Holocaust was wrong. Case closed.

Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.

In this thread I will limit my argument to the Holocaust. If I can show that the Holocaust was wrong, then I think I have made the case that Hitler was wrong.

The Holocaust was wrong. Six million Jews lost their lives. Imagine that. They were ordinary people going about their lives. Their lives were ended prematurely. All their hopes and dreams and ambitions were gone. Who among us would want to live in a world where something like this is considered normal? Who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could snuff out our lives simply because they wanted to?

Not only were they killed, but they suffered horribly. They were put into concentration camps where they were starved. This caused immense suffering. Again, who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could do this to people?

And think of all their loved ones who never got to enjoy life with their friends and relatives that were killed. Think of all those who had depended on their relatives, and now had to go though life without their loved ones that were locked up or killed. Again, who would want to live in a world where something like this is normal?

So based on these reasons, I conclude that the Holocaust was harmful to people. I would never want to live in a world where humans were treated that way. It is my hope that none of us ever see anything as horrible as the Holocaust.
But you fail to answer the crux of the issue. Why is harming people wrong? People are just another animal like a rat or a cockroach, there is nothing special about humans as far as evolution is concerned. So why should they be treated any differently from rats?
 
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
Let me summarize what I have been hearing from you in this thread:

1) Hitler used his brain.
2) Hitler was evil.
3) Therefore, everybody who uses their brain is evil and cannot be trusted.​

The problem is, you used your brain to state that syllogism. If your syllogism is true, then you have proved that you cannot be trusted.

You have cut off the branch you are sitting on. Have a nice fall.

stock-vector-salesman-is-cutting-a-tree-branch-on-which-he-is-sitting-a-man-in-a-suit-sits-on-a-tree-with-a-412514377.jpg
No, you missed the point. My point is that according to atheistic evolution both you Hitler have the same source for your morality (a brain created by amoral random processes) even though your morality is very different from his and you seem to think your morality is superior to his. So what is the objectively rational basis for this belief? How can your morality be better if they both are the outcome of the same process?
 
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: It is relatively easy and simple using causality and the BB theory as well as the characteristics of the universe.

ia: Relatively easy and simple to prove that God exists? Cool. Do it then. Not on a forum where you can say anything you like without consequence. After all, talk is cheap.
You say it's easy to prove God exists? Then go and publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Then you can collect a few Nobel prizes, and disprove all the other world religions, and come back and tell me all about it.
Of course, no Christian can do any such thing.
I am not claiming I can prove with certainty He exists, but that it is rational to believe that He does based on the origin and characteristics of this universe. Actually many cosmologists have come to the conclusion by studying the origin of this universe that He probably does exist, like Paul Davies, Hugh Ross, and Arno Penzias among others.

ed: If you can find a non personal source of purpose, I am all ears. And you cant use living things as an example because that assumes what you are trying to prove.

ia: I think you really need to drop this now. Living things have purpose because they can feel and think. It's really that simple. The fact that living things with purpose exist in no way implies the existence of a purposeful being creating the universe. Your argument just doesn't make sense.
I will take that as that you are unable to provide an example of something impersonal producing a purpose. So my argument stands unrefuted on this issue.

ed: No, again you are assuming what you need to prove. You are assuming that natural selection can produce truth recognizing beings, ie humans, but how is that possible if natural selection only selects for survivability? A dog cannot determine if it is true that it has a finite lifespan or realize that if it loses a leg it will limp. And etc. Because none of those recognitions increase its survivability.

ia: Because being able to perceive the world around you and react to it is a vital necessity that evolution would certainly select for. If you can't sense the world - ie, see/feel/hear/smell/taste the real world around you, you won't be able to survive in it. Try walking around with a blindfold and earplugs on, and you'll see what I mean.
Being able to react and survive to threats to survival is not the same thing as truth recognition. A cockroach hides under a rock or a shoe not knowing which is which.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But you fail to answer the crux of the issue. Why is harming people wrong? People are just another animal like a rat or a cockroach, there is nothing special about humans as far as evolution is concerned. So why should they be treated any differently from rats?
I don't think that people are just another animal like a rat or cockroach. People are animals but not like cockroaches or rats. This is obvious. I have a moral system because I choose to. The same is for you. You have chosen a moral system based on the bible, I have chosen a moral system based on empathy, logic and reason. We have both made a choice. Neither can provide sufficient evidence that our moral system is absolute. But we can both provide evidence that they are objective. So why not talk about moral actions to see which system is better?
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am not claiming I can prove with certainty He exists, but that it is rational to believe that He does based on the origin and characteristics of this universe. Actually many cosmologists have come to the conclusion by studying the origin of this universe that He probably does exist, like Paul Davies, Hugh Ross, and Arno Penzias among others.
Most cosmologists do not believe in a god. That is an irrelevant point.


I will take that as that you are unable to provide an example of something impersonal producing a purpose. So my argument stands unrefuted on this issue.
Humans are the example. We are the product of evolution and impersonal process. We create our own purpose.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
But you fail to answer the crux of the issue. Why is harming people wrong?
According to the dictionary, "wrong" is defined as an unjust, dishonest, or immoral action.

Do you agree with me that the Holocaust was unjust? If so, then, by definition, unjust acts like the Holocaust are wrong.

People are just another animal like a rat or a cockroach, there is nothing special about humans as far as evolution is concerned. So why should they be treated any differently from rats?
I disagree. I value the human mind more than I value cockroaches or rats.

Which do you value more?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
No, you missed the point. My point is that according to atheistic evolution both you Hitler have the same source for your morality (a brain created by amoral random processes) even though your morality is very different from his and you seem to think your morality is superior to his. So what is the objectively rational basis for this belief? How can your morality be better if they both are the outcome of the same process?
You, Hitler, and I all used thoughts.

I believe that you and I are more rational than Hitler.

Do you agree that you and I are more rational than Hitler?
 
Last edited:
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

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
No, you missed the point. My point is that according to atheistic evolution both you Hitler have the same source for your morality (a brain created by amoral random processes) even though your morality is very different from his and you seem to think your morality is superior to his. So what is the objectively rational basis for this belief? How can your morality be better if they both are the outcome of the same process?
If all people that use their minds to make decisions are as bad as Hitler, then none of us can be trusted, including you.

You have cut off the branch you are sitting on.

cutting-the-branch-your-sitting-on-KYR6RA.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
both you Hitler have the same source for your morality...How can your morality be better if they both are the outcome of the same process?


I happen to think that my reasoning process is better than Hitler's.

Do you have any evidence that my reasoning process is as bad as Hitler's?
 
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: It is a plain violation of the free exercise clause. So you don't care about violations of the Constitution? Would you also force a jewish baker to bake a cake for a Neo Nazi celebrating Hitlers birthday?

ia: Um. The one is a hate crime, the other is a harmless expression of love.
Ed, can I suggest you rethink your arguments. Because, quite simply, none of them make any sense.
No, in both cases the government is forcing someone to violate their deeply held beliefs. And preventing one to exercise their religion which means not endorsing a behavior which they believe is wrong.

ed: Name one time.

ia: Name one time Donald Trump has violated the First Amendment? Okay. I think the worst incident was probably when he ordered police to attack a peaceable gathering of protestors. Please think about this seriously before you defend Trump. It was a gathering of innocent and peaceable protestors, and he ordered them cleared out of his path with gas and violent assaults so that he could walk across the street.
No, they were mixed in with protestors that were throwing rocks at the Secret Service guarding the White house. It would have been very difficult to separate them out.

ia: Also, there was that time Trump tried to block people on Twitter, and they took him to court and won, because the judges rules that he was violating the First Amendment.
And also, let's be honest: Donald Trump is quite obviously a person who doesn't care in the slightest for people's right to free speech.
Evidence he tried to block people on Twitter? Actually he strongly endorsed the investigation by Congress of Big tech censoring conservatives on Google, Facebook and Twitter.

ed: So you have no problems with violating the Second Amendment either? No wonder you like them. Doesn't surprise me coming from someone that admires Communist China.

ia: (shrug) So what? I just happen to agree with most civilised countries that its a very bad idea to allow your citizens to have unfettered access to any kinds of firearms they wish.
You do know that one of the Nazis first actions against the jews was to confiscate their guns dont you? The fate of the jews might have been very different if the Nazis had not done that

ed: I doubt seriously he would agree with you on much. He said mans law should be judged how well it accords with Gods law. It sounds like you have never read the letter. How would you determine whether it is immoral or not? As an atheist you dont believe in any objective moral law.
I think Martin Luther King and I would probably agree on a lot.

ia: And since you're a supporter of Donald Trump and I'm a vocal critic of him, I think Martin Luther King would be more on my side than yours.
His niece actually supports Trump. And Trump is trying to bring our nation back to Gods law which MLK strongly believed in, read A Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

ed: I didn't say person, I said being. A being can be the essence of something. And that being can also be a person. But beings can be the essence of many things, such as a raccoon contains the essence of being a raccoon.

ia: You said that God is three persons. Okay. Fine. I don't mind what you believe. But you repeating yourself and then claiming not to have repeated yourself is getting a little boring.

Where did I repeat myself?

ed: All those things.
ia: A shame, since they contradict each other.
In what way?

ed: I am not claiming that it can be proven with absolute certainty. Only that it can be shown to be most likely to be good and sound by experience.

ia: Okay, then. So you have nothing.
So are you saying your experience with your wife is nothing? Experience is plainly not nothing.

ia: You say that Christianity provides a sound foundation for morality, but it can't "be proven with absolute certainty" but is just "most likely" because of your "experience."

It has a foundation in the existence of God whom can be shown to most likely exist by logical reasoning. Atheism has absolutely no rational foundation for morality. It is non existent.

ed: We have built in goodar, ie moral conscience, our moral conscience recognizes what is good. So over time as we know and experience Him we discover He is good, just like you do with any other person.

ia: I see. And how did you get this "goodar"?
"Over time and experience" sounds like you develop a sense of morality naturally, which means you don't need God.
From our moral creator.

ed: From my experience with Him just like you know this about your wife.

ia: but we're not talking about how you can know that God is good or not. We're talking about how you can know what goodness itself is. And your arguments are hopelessly self-contradictory at this point.
By our moral conscience.

ed: By doing good things for me, helping me in times of trouble and etc.

ia: And how do you know that doing good things for someone and helping them is a good thing to do?
Our conscience.

ia:On what do you base your morality?
He who created our moral conscience.

ed: Where did I say that? I said I could prove it to the same level that you can prove that your wife loves you.

ia: But I can't prove my wife loves me. And if you now agree that you can't prove that God is the foundation of goodness, then...golly, I guess that means I won the debate.
I can demonstrate that He most likely exists using logic and science. Then after that when you establish a relationship with Him you discover that He is the foundation of goodness.

ed: No, I never said I could prove it with absolute certainty. That is what faith is.

ia: Gotcha. You say that Christian morality is reliable and objective, since it is based on God's character. Just so long as you have faith.
Faith based on the objective existence of God than can be demonstrated that most likely He does exist.

ia: Well, it's good of you to be so straightforward in conceding defeat. Next time, please could you do it on the first or second page, instead of the twenty-first or twenty-second? It save time.
I am not conceding defeat as far as the existence of His moral character which can be demonstrated to exist using logic and science.

ed: If He is the good, then He cannot logically do evil. It would be logically impossible for Him to do evil.

ia: Except that if He did it, it would not be evil. Because, as we've already established, God Himself is the standard of goodness, and since there is nothing outside of Him that he can be measured by or be forced to abide by, He can declare that anything He wants is good - and you cannot object to it.
He is forced to abide by His own character which is good.

ed: No, actually they dont. What appears to be out of character is probably just a part of their character that you had not seen yet.

ia: Fine. Maybe God just has a part of His character you haven't seen yet.
Possibly but it cannot be an evil part.

ed: It is not proof but it is evidence that God is good since His people (Christians) generally only came up with inventions for the good of humanity like the medical sciences. Of course, that would only be considered good for those that value humans.

ia: Again, nonsense.
Evidence?

ed: No, He is a person with a divine essence just like you are a person with a human essence.

ia: You said He was three people. So is it three or one?
Yes, He is three in person, but only one in divine essence.

ed: So you deny that American has the principles and rights I mentioned above?

ia: I deny that these rights and principles are exclusively Christian, yes. I'd be happy to say that the USA is founded on principles shared by Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims and quite a lot of people. If that's what you're arguing for, cool.
Muslims do not believe in human equality, at least the ones that follow the Koran. But yes other religions and philosophies do teach some of these principles but among the Founders they only respected Christianity and Unitarianism so they plainly got the principles from Christianity and the Bible.

ed: It comes from the actions of Christ and His disciples. They never used force to convert anyone. Jesus said if they reject your message just walk away.

ia: And that's it? You base a whole argument on a single sentence or two? Sounds like Jesus was just giving them sensible advice for spreading the gospel.
Not if they were concerned about numbers, many more would have converted by force. It is not just that verse, there is also the examples of Peter and Paul.

ia: And what about the first of the Ten Commandments? They don't matter any more?
Even the Ten Commandments do not threaten any punishment for not worshiping God. It is just a command.

ed: No, Jefferson said we get our rights from the Unitarian God which is basically identical to the Christian God, he just does not intervene supernaturally. And he gives us the same rights and moral laws.

ia: Sure, Jefferson may have said that. And then he decided to build a society in which God had nothing whatsoever to do with the law.
No, he wrote the philosophical foundation for our society, the DOI, upon which most of our laws are based as I demonstrated earlier how it is considered part of our legal code and was the basis for MLKs actions.

ed: See above about free speech and freedom of conscience. Gods ideal form of government was revealed to the hebrews when Jethro told Moses to have the people choose their leaders from among them, ie election, and also in the Book of Acts the apostles told the church members to choose their deacons and elders from among them, ie elect them.

ia: Fine. Their deacons and elders. Not their kings, lords, parliaments and presidents.
Yes, their representatives and judges, similar to our Congress.

ed: The first amendment is referring to a Federal church. That has nothing to do with not being founded on Christian principles. This is a straw man. John Adams wrote to Jefferson "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young gentlemen could unite. And what were these general principles? I would answer the general principles of Christianity...." And I could provide more.

ia: All you have to do is point out what these "Christian principles" are that the USA is supposed to be founded on. I'm still waiting to hear.
I did see above about equality and many parts of the Bill of Rights.

ed: Separation of Church and state was taught by Christ, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars and unto God what is Gods". But He did not teach separation of God and State.

ia: That sounds like exactly what he was teaching - in the single sentence response you base your entire argument on. Come on - how can you expect me to take this seriously?
No, not just that sentence, read Romans 13. The government punishes societies evildoers but not the church. The church just punishes church members and only with excommunication.

ed: I admit trial by jury is not a christian principle But freedom of speech and conscience is as I demonstrated in my previous post above.

ia: Of course it isn't. Have you forgotten? God gave rules to His people to follow. And the first one was, "Thou shalt have no God above me." Which is, of course, completely at odds with the US constitution.
But no punishment was provided for not doing so and see my statements about Jesus and the disciples they never forced anyone to convert and often verbally debated with pagans about who was the true God, they could not have done that without allowing free speech.

ed: No, the First Amendment just meant that there could be no federal church and could not favor one Christian sect over others. Franklin recommended that public schools acknowledge a creator God and His moral laws and an afterlife where your deeds will be judged. Apparently he felt that a generic religion like that did not violate the First Amendment.

ia: The First Amendment means exactly what it says: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. In other words, no religion in government. Not just "one Christian sect." No religion. A very sensible idea. If Franklin was inconsistent about this, or was occasionally hypocritical about it, well, he was a fallible human in the early days of one of the first secular countries in the world.

No, establishment meant church or organization, it says nothing about incorporating Christian principles into government. And in fact the free exercise clause encourages it since influencing others including members of government is a Christian duty.

ed: Besides the principles I referred to above and in a previous email, one of the US most important principles is human equality which is also a Christian principle.

ia: First, highly debatable. Second, you have to prove it is an exclusively Christian principle, one that cannot be held by people of other religions or no religions.
No, there are a few others that have this teaching like Judaism but the Founders only respected Christianity and Unitarianism so that is where they got it from. And atheism has no rational basis for believing in equality even if they may believe it.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
No, in both cases the government is forcing someone to violate their deeply held beliefs. And preventing one to exercise their religion which means not endorsing a behavior which they believe is wrong.

What if people have a deeply held belief in sacrificing babies? The government has the authority to prevent them from exercising that aspect of their religion, yes?

What if people had a religious belief in speeding, or shoplifting, or throwing tomatoes at school children? Religion is not a trump card that overrides every other law. The rule of law still needs to apply. We make as many exceptions as possible for deeply held beliefs, but it cannot be a universal rule that religion trumps all other law.
 
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
Uh no, energy lost does not mean entropy increased. When it comes to heat transfer, you have it backwards. In classical thermodynamics, the change in entropy is defined as the flow of heat into a system divided by the absolute temperature. When heat flows in, the object increases in entropy. When heat flows out, entropy decreases.

For the earth, an approximate equal amounts of energy radiate to the earth and away from the earth. The heat from the sun increases the earth's entropy. The heat radiated to space decreases the entropy. Since the heat radiated to space occurs at a lower temperature, it has a larger effect, so the net result of the two processes is a decrease in the earth's entropy. This creates hot and cold spots on earth that are able to do work. For instance, it enables water vapor to continually be lifted up into the mountains where it falls as snow to form glaciers.

Imagine how many pumps it would take to get all that snow up into the mountains. But nature does it continuously over many thousands of years, without intelligent intervention. No intervention is needed to cause this decrease in entropy.
Reference?

dm: Ah yes, no matter the topic of the thread, we always end up talking about Hitler and the beginning of the universe. Sigh.

We don't know what forces caused our universe. Did those forces cause many universes, or just this one? Regardless, there is no contradiction in saying that these forces outside of our universe may operate from different laws from the way it works inside the universe.

We can make a logical deduction of what or who caused the universe. From the history of science it has always been a better assumption to assume that the laws of logic apply even in areas that humans have never been. For example before space travel, we didnt know for certain that logic applied to outer space but we assumed that it did before we traveled there, and it turned out we were right. So it is more rational to assume that logic applies also to "outside" the universe.
 
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
Salah lived thirty years and became the ancestor of Eber. What is wrong with that? How do you know that was not the author's intention? We know that ancient genealogies are not exhaustive from studying ancient societies at the time, unlike modern genealogies. So that is an extremely likely translation of the phrase.
 
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
That is not true. The fossil record is full of records of past floods that were much smaller in nature than the flood of Noah. We know what flood debris looks like, and we find it buried down there. But we find nothing that looks like a worldwide flood.
In 2 million years most of it would have eroded away, so that it would look like multiple small floods.


dm: Absolutely, over many millions of years. But there is no layer at 2 million years of a global flood, which is what you predict.
Most of the evidence eroded away.


dm: Wait, you believe there was water that covered the earth 2 million years ago? Where did that water come from? Where did it go?
It came from the atmosphere and under the earths crust thru hydraulic vents on the ocean floor. Probably God removed most of it supernaturally.

dm: The earth's axis has been tilting regularly, causing ice ages to come and go. This has happened on a regular pattern. There was no sudden change 2 million years ago.
That was the last major ice age and probably the largest, most likely due to the weight of the water causing greater perturbations than previous motions of the axis.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
Reference?
Regarding the laws of thermodynamics, see any high school physics textbook or Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia .

By the way, I graduated in mechanical engineering, and have more than just an elementary knowledge of thermodynamics.
We can make a logical deduction of what or who caused the universe.
Not really. The known laws of physics break down at Plank Time, a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Before that, we have no ability to really know what happened.
From the history of science it has always been a better assumption to assume that the laws of logic apply even in areas that humans have never been.
The laws of logic, perhaps. But the laws of thermodynamics? We really don't know how that applies outside our universe.

Are you saying that God himself is limited by the second law, and that God himself cannot create a universe?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
Salah lived thirty years and became the ancestor of Eber. What is wrong with that? How do you know that was not the author's intention? We know that ancient genealogies are not exhaustive from studying ancient societies at the time, unlike modern genealogies. So that is an extremely likely translation of the phrase.

You have tried to take the text below and say there were 2 million years from the flood to Abraham. Please read the passage below and then tell me with a straight face that the author thought Abraham was born 2 million years after the flood.

Genesis 11:10-26
10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.

14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.

16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.

18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.

20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

21 And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.

22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

23 And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters.

26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.​

Let's face it. Regarding the age of the earth, Genesis got it wrong
 
Last edited:
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

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
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
In 2 million years most of it would have eroded away, so that it would look like multiple small floods.
Uh, no, that's not how it works. If all the earth's crust is eroding everywhere, where is it all going?

The fact is that there is continual erosion some places, and continual buildup other places. If there was a global flood 2 million years ago, there would have been a global flood layer. Some of it would have eroded away, and some of it would have been covered up. We would expect to see a global layer of flood debris in rock that was dated 2 million years old. We do not see that.


It [the flood water] came from the atmosphere and under the earths crust thru hydraulic vents on the ocean floor. Probably God removed most of it supernaturally.
Uh, no, if the atmosphere was completely saturated, it would only cover the earth with a few inches. And if vast amounts of water came up form the earth, it would leave huge caverns where it left. We see none of this. So how did there get to be enough of water to cover Mount Everest?



That was the last major ice age and probably the largest, most likely due to the weight of the water causing greater perturbations than previous motions of the axis.
Uh, no, there was no unusual ice age 2 million years ago. The earth's axis has been regularly shifting, setting up ice age cycles for millions of years. I found the following chart, for instance:
paleo_cycles13.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.