Where's God?

muichimotsu · Dec 29, 2020

While natural selection is not random, the guiding force of natural selection IS random, e.g. changes in the environment.

Not truly random, you're still weaseling in a false dichotomy that tries to insinuate your position is better without evidencing the thing you claim exists

It is more rational for morality to have come from a preexisting moral standard rather than amoral processes.

You're free to think that, it doesn't make it so without an argument, which you haven't made, so maybe start with that. The "amoral" processes don't have the capacity to think about morality, you're still asserting teleology without a basis beyond your "common sense"

There is much more evidence for dualism than that. In fact, a purely materialistic mind is self refuting.

No it isn't, it's called supervenience and emergent properties. It's experiential, it's not supposed to be purely material in an absolute empirical sense, there's always going to be some foundational elements that we assert for practicality, you're still expecting absolute certainty in any position, which is highly irrational and unrealistic

But if the origin of your brain chemicals is the same as the origin of Hitler's then how do you know that your view of caring about most humans is better than his view of just caring about people he called Aryans?

Because the origin of the brain chemicals is not the same as the result made by thinking about morality, you're engaging in a fallacy of composition now, same as I've already brought up, and others have as well. The ontology of something does not follow to the capacity it has in a holistic sense versus the reductionist angle you're going with (and taking a reductio ad Hitlerum no less)

~~~~

The mind of the creator of His image bearers and the universe in which they live certainly would know what is best for us.

Only if you could actually demonstrate it, you're just asserting it, which is pointless, because I could just assert something and justify it by the same nebulous faith basis and anthropocentric presuppositions. Weaseling in intention without evidence is dishonest

What I want is irrelevant, there is strong evidence that there is a perfect moral standard whether you or I want it or not, the objective character of the Creator of the Universe. The moral law of God would say that what you did was justified.

A perfect moral standard could not take variation into account, it would apply universally with no variations or changes possible, in order to actually be perfect. Would that law say so, or are you just happening to agree and that doesn't actually justify your claim of this law existing beyond your assertion and confidence (neither of which are evidence)?

God's moral law is context sensitive both to the temporal context and the ultimate context.

If it is perfect, as you described, it cannot be context sensitive or it is therefore relative and not necessary and thus perfect. If you're just making this up, it's not helping your case at all, it's only showing that you keep grasping at straws with presup nonsense that is circular and question begging about something that isn't evidenced (God), usually because of a false dichotomy or misunderstanding about logic

No, see above. God and His law has our absolute best interests in mind.

Except that's just authoritarian and totalitarian, it demands obedience above thinking, which is morally repugnant because it doesn't care about agency or autonomy in any meaningful sense. You can't simultaneously say you care about free will and then throw it out as essentially evil except in a very particular execution

~~~~

Where does this value come from? Why does just having a moral capacity make homo sapiens more valuable than other animals? Sounds like something humans made up just because of their own feelings for other humans.

Wow, more strawman, because I never said that: the mere feeling or capacity to think about morality doesn't make us more special, it allows us to conceive of the idea of value in the first place, which is not necessarily unique to us in the entire universe, it's only assumed with a great deal of arrogance by people who then conveniently posit a creator that is much like them in its general thought process, just "perfect"

It is a social obligation for us to care about each other because it benefits us to have that concern in order for society to continue flourishing as best it can, rather than bending to the will of theocratic sycophants who think they know what's best by appealing to something they rationalize rather than demonstrate with any consistent valid and sound arguments

InterestedAtheist · Dec 29, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
It is more rational for morality to have come from a preexisting moral standard rather than amoral processes.

No, it is less rational to believe that morality came from some pre-existing moral standard. Because that then begs the question: where did this pre-existing moral standard come from?

Ed1wolf said:
What I want is irrelevant, there is strong evidence that there is a perfect moral standard whether you or I want it or not, the objective character of the Creator of the Universe. The moral law of God would say that what you did was justified.

Sorry, but after forty pages of this thread, that's just a joke. You've been asked many, many times to supply this evidence that a perfect moral standard exists, and have been unable to.

In fact, my claim that you are using circular reasoning has been proved beautifully by the way you repeat yourself again and again. "God's character is the standard of morality. How do we know? Why, from our moral sense. Which was given to us by God. Who is the foundation of our morality, as you will recall from when I just said it."

I have to thank you, though. You have provided a completely exhaustive response to whether or not a Christian can address Euthyphro's Dilemma, showing that they can not.

doubtingmerle · Dec 29, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
how do you know that your view of caring about most humans is better than his view of just caring about people he called Aryans?

Please look at the picture below of the Holocaust. Can you not understand that this is obviously bad? Can you not understand that these people obviously are not living the good life? Can you not see that since these people want to live, and want to live the good life, that they are being treated unfairly? Can you not see that treating people unfairly is wrong? Can you not see that other rulers have treated people better.?

So how can you look at this picture and ask us why we think other ways of treating the Jews would have been better?

Are you seriously going to tell us that the only way to figure out if the Holocaust was bad is to ask what God thinks about it? Are you seriously going to tell us that humans cannot look at this picture, and see for themselves that this is bad?

636608781878534599-MJS-DEU-NS-ZEIT-HOLOCAUST-GEDENKEN.jpg

Ed1wolf · Dec 30, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
My thoughts and Mengele's thoughts don't have the same origin. Josef Mengele's thought came from Mengele's brain and my thoughts come from my brain. We have different brains.

Yes, they do they came from the same random process. And your thoughts are just chemical reactions so why should someone be punished just for different chemical reactions that caused them to destroy a bunch of bags of chemicals on a tiny rock in a huge universe?

dm: When I use my brain I come up with this argument to show that Mengele was wrong in the Holocaust:

1. Mengele was not being fair to the Jews when he killed them.
2. The dictionary defines wrong as "an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause."
3. Therefore Mengele's actions were wrong.

Mengele felt that jews were not being fair to Aryans. So both of you have the same justification, you both believe that unfairness occurred. And only to humans, there is nothing objectively special about humans, so what about unfairness to other species? You both seem to be guilty of specieism.

dm: OK, now it is your turn. Please show us your argument that Mengele was wrong in the Holocaust. We will see if your argument is better.

He was wrong because humans have infinite objective value and he was destroying the image bearers of the Creator and Judge of the Universe and thereby deserving of eternal punishment.

Ed1wolf · Dec 30, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
To be or not to be, that is your question.

I choose to be, to live, and to live that life fully. Whether or not it is nobler to continue one's life, or end it all, I really cannot prove one way or the other. Can you? But even though we cannot prove with absolute certainty that our continued existence is better than our nonexistence, we choose to live, and choose to live fully.

Having chosen to live fully, I now need to choose one of three doors to get there: Door #1: live in cooperation with others; or door #2: find a way to cheat others into giving me a full life without helping them; or door #3: go out on my own with no benefit from anything any other human ever did. I choose door #1. For one thing, I would not be smart enough to make life after door #2 or #3 work. For another, I cannot imagine that life through door #2 or #3 would lead me to a fulfilling life. So I gladly choose door #1: living in cooperation with others.

Living in cooperation involves treating each other fairly. Yes, we each have different ideas of what is fair. Where we differ, I find that we can talk things out and can usually find compromises that most people can accept. Some compromises are better than others. We constantly seek to fine tune our laws and morality to best be fair to everyone. It works.

Do you think those who use Door #2 are doing something wrong? Secular humanists are not very fair to unborn children. And what about their unfairness to gays by covering up evidence that engaging in homosexual behavior is not good for them in this world or the next?

dm: But then there are some ideas, such as the Holocaust, that simply are not compatible with door #1. If somebody chooses that path, then there is no way their ideas can be considered fair. Since they are not fair, they are wrong. Such ideas get rejected by all decent people that have chosen door #1.

So is there a good reason to treat humans with dignity and respect? Yes. As long as I choose to live, to live fully, and live in cooperation with others, then I have good reason to treat other humans with dignity and respect.

Yes but those are just subjective reasons based on feelings, it is not based any thing real or objective.

InterestedAtheist · Dec 30, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
He was wrong because humans have infinite objective value and he was destroying the image bearers of the Creator and Judge of the Universe and thereby deserving of eternal punishment.

Two questions.
First, by what means do you determine that Mengele acted wrongly? Because God told you so? In which case, by what means do you determine that God is correct to tell you so? Is it "Because He's God, and everything He says is right?", or something of that nature?

Second, how is it that Mengele was able to destroy the image bearers of the creator? All he did was destroy their bodies. Their souls survived, and went on to heaven - or, as is rather more likely given they were not Christians, to eternal hellfire. In either case, all Mengele did was hasten them on to the next part of their eternal journeys. Considering they will spend the rest of eternity there, Mengele's actions only changed their lives by a paltry handful of mortal years. They were bound for a destination and he helped them to get there a few seconds earlier than they otherwise might have.

So, by your moral system, what exactly did he do wrong?

muichimotsu · Dec 30, 2020

Do you think those who use Door #2 are doing something wrong? Secular humanists are not very fair to unborn children. And what about their unfairness to gays by covering up evidence that engaging in homosexual behavior is not good for them in this world or the next?

You're derailing now and throwing out red herrings that are just gish galloping the whole issue by selectively pointing out what you don't like without actually substantiating it. Unborn are given far fairer treatment by those who recognize the broken adoption system and how casually people regard children like they're a social accomplishment instead of a lifetime commitment and don't even consider that maybe they shouldn't be parents, like I have. Why? Because I actually care about children's welfare, much as you would think I don't when I am pro choice, which is not pro abortion ever, because choice entails abortion as an option, not the only option

Gay behavior in itself is not the issue, it's being irresponsible, which can apply and likely does far more to straight people, given that they are the majority and would also be just as likely to do dangerous sexual activity where you're just having sex with multiple people without protection or such, very hedonistic stuff.

No one's covering up the evidence, you're misinterpreting one study that's often used that's easily 50 years old that was studying people that were in a generation that still barely understood HIV/AIDS (which many people today still don't seem to understand are not the same thing)

Yes but those are just subjective reasons based on feelings, it is not based any thing real or objective.

And again, you don't seem to be using an honest definition of objective that isn't just appealing to something you already believe in instead of actually arguing for it. Objective /=/ absolute by any of the definitions I've given and even in philosophical discussions, it isn't focused on this authoritarian bent you seem to have where there needs to be an outside source that declares it (which is technically subjective, because the subject in subjective can entail a mind)[/QUOTE]

Ed1wolf · Dec 30, 2020

Clizby WampusCat said:
ed: If atheistic evolution is true then there is no real difference other than being the most intelligent animal.
cw: Evolution is not atheistic. Atheism is solely the rejection of god claims. Evolution can be true if a god exists or not. I know you think atheist is a derogatory word so I guess that is why you attach it it evolution.

No, the two main types of evolution are theistic and atheistic. I am just making the point if atheistic evolution is true then human are no more valuable or special than other animals. But if evolution is theistic then humans have infinite intrinsic value just as they would with creation. Evolution would just be the process by which we were created.

cw: Well I think people are different than all other animals

In what way other than quantitative?

cw: and my moral system is based on well being which benefits everyone. These things I get to choose, I don't need a god to say what is right or wrong. I base moral decisions on well being. That makes my moral decisions objective. When I compare my moral system to that of the bibles, mine maximizes well being, the bibles moral system does not.

It depends on what you mean by benefits and well being. Only Christianity maximizes your well being eternally. Yours does not and may not even temporally depending on what you mean.

doubtingmerle · Dec 30, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Y
And your thoughts are just chemical reactions so why should someone be punished just for different chemical reactions that caused them to destroy a bunch of bags of chemicals on a tiny rock in a huge universe?

You are mixing up two invalid arguments: 1) that all thoughts coming from all brains are worthless, and 2) that all people are worthless.

I disagree with both of your arguments.

First I do not agree that all human thoughts are worthless to me. Think of the great things that Einstein and Lincoln and Socrates figured out.

Second, I do not agree with your argument that people to me are just a bag of chemicals. People have value to me.

Mengele felt that jews were not being fair to Aryans. So both of you have the same justification, you both believe that unfairness occurred.

Seriously. You are going to challenge my assertion that the Nazis were being unfair to the Jews?

I started another thread with a poll on whether Hitler was being fair. I invite you to vote in that poll. Was Hitler being fair to the Jews ? | Christian Forums

Please quit pretending that maybe Hitler was fair. He was not being fair.

He was wrong because humans have infinite objective value and he was destroying the image bearers of the Creator and Judge of the Universe and thereby deserving of eternal punishment.

What if the Jews did not have infinite objective value? I contend that the Holocaust was wrong, regardless of whether the victims had infinite objective value.

What about the Amalekite babies? You said it was OK to kill those Amalekite babies. Did those Amalekite babies have value? I contend that they had value, and did not deserve to die.

doubtingmerle · Dec 30, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Do you think those who use Door #2 are doing something wrong?

Of course. "Door #2" in my illustration meant willfully choosing to take advantage of what others were doing without doing anything of value for others. That would definitely be unfair, by any definition of the word unfair. Acts that are unfair are wrong, based on the common English definition of the word wrong. So yes, those who could give back, but take advantage of others by receiving without giving anything back to anybody, are unfair, and therefore wrong.

Do you agree with me that those who could help others, but instead take from others without giving anything back, are wrong?

Yes but those are just subjective reasons based on feelings, it is not based any thing real or objective.

Huh? My life is real. In order to have a meaningful life, I need to receive from others, and give to others. How is that not real?

muichimotsu · Dec 30, 2020

No, the two main types of evolution are theistic and atheistic. I am just making the point if atheistic evolution is true then human are no more valuable or special than other animals. But if evolution is theistic then humans have infinite intrinsic value just as they would with creation. Evolution would just be the process by which we were created.

You're adding an unnecessary metaphysical qualification to evolutionary biology and the scientific theory that models and predicts the aspects we observe that best explains the diversity of species. One's belief in God or lack thereof is not pertinent to evolutionary biology, because it's not making a claim of value as you claim it does, that's you insinuating something into science that isn't there.

No one said humans were more special than other animals based on evolutionary biology, that's a patent strawman that is also dishonest, because you haven't substantiated that this is remotely the position of anyone in this discussion in the first place. There can be a valuation of humans and it doesn't require appealing to science at all

In what way other than quantitative?

Do you mean qualitative? Pretty sure insects are animals and they vastly outnumber humans even at present in terms of their sheer population estimates.

Humans value each other because of a social instinct we have that, combined with our empathy through mirror neurons, allows us to understand humans are all very similar in our experience of suffering, of happiness, etc. The differences are more environmental and habitual based on individuals. The problem is your idea that value is a substantive quality in and of itself and not an assessment by a subject, thus subjective, by its nature

It depends on what you mean by benefits and well being. Only Christianity maximizes your well being eternally. Yours does not and may not even temporally depending on what you mean.

Oh we're just going to play the semantic game now? By that logic, all you're doing is just affirming some authority for your meaning and not anything resembling a reliable standard that isn't "might makes right,"

And eternal well being is arguably antithetical to genuine well being, which fully acknowledges that suffering will happen (I should know, right, being a Buddhist and all, though suffering is one translation of that word used for one of the 3 universal truths) rather than wanting perfection and absolute goodness

Ed1wolf · Dec 30, 2020

Clizby WampusCat said:
ed: More cosmologists believe in God than biologists. I dont think it is irrelevant, because if it was so obvious that cosmology provides no evidence for God then the number of cosmologists who believe in God would be practically zero and this is not the case.

cw: It does not matter how many people believe something, that is irrelevant to what actually is true. Most people in the world do not believe in the Christian god and most Christians believe in evolution. Those two facts have no bearing on whether either are true.

While of course it is not strong evidence, I do believe that it is relevant how many people believe something is relevant. Such as murder, most people believe murder is wrong. I believe that is evidence that not committing murder is a moral absolute, though it doesnt prove it.
↑

ed: What is the purpose of humans and how do you know this?

cw: We make our own purpose. It is whatever one decides it is at any moment.

So if Castro felt it was his purpose to destroy the Cuban upper class, that was a legitimate purpose for him?

Ed1wolf · Dec 31, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
dm: Yes but the dictionary definition is just based on an irrational sentimentality for humans.
Ah, I see, your problem is that I use English words as defined by the dictionary. Would you prefer I speak Spanish?

I think I have shown to you that Hitler was wrong. By "wrong" I mean "wrong" as defined by common usage and by Webster's dictionary (that evil, liberal, Venezuelan, Socialist, biased book written by Chavez, perhaps. )

Nevertheless, you for some reason have a different definition for the word "wrong" compared to everybody else. Please give us your definition for the word wrong, and why you prefer to use this definition instead of the definition that is in the dictionary.

And when you give us what the true meaning of "wrong" is, will you also please define what the meaning of "is" is?

No, you misunderstood. Yours and the dictionary's basis for condemning Hitler is BASED on an irrational sentimentality for homo sapiens. I am referring to the basis for your moral decisions not whether your conclusion or the dictionary's conclusions are correct. I think most humans agree that what Hitler did was wrong. Your basis for condemning him is subjective and objectively irrational. They may be subjectively rational in that you dont want to hurt humans because you dont want to be hurt. That is rational but is just based on fear of being hurt. Christian morality is based on a rationally objective standard that was created for our temporal and eternal good. The moral law of God which is based on His objectively existing character.

ed: Yes, but that is just based on your irrational sentimentality for humans.

dm: In what way is love of humans irrational? Would it be better for us to hate humans?

It is subjectively rational but objectively irrational if there is no God.

ed: Humans because they have objective intrinsic infinite value.

dm: Please give your evidence that humans not only have infinite value, but have "objective intrinsic infinite value". You have not attempted to do that.

Because all humans are created in the image of the objectively existing Eternal Creator and King of the Universe who values us infinitely.

dm: I love humans because, as I see it, they have great value. I would not say they have infinite value.

But not all humans love other humans and some think they have very little value and in fact some environmentalists think the population should be radically reduced because humans are in fact destroying the planet and therefore should be encouraged to go extinct. And some humans believe certain categories of humans do not have the right to live, such as unwanted unborn children. Only Christianity believes that all humans have infinite value no matter their age, race, gender, or location where they live.

dm: People that just make stuff up out of thin air don't get anywhere in life. OK, yes, sometimes they get to be President, but eventually people wake up, and send them home.

Such as making up that certain people dont have the right to life? Or that even most humans do not have a right to live on the earth?

doubtingmerle · Dec 31, 2020

Good morning! What are we talking about today? Hitler, gay sex, or the Big Bang?

Ed1wolf said:
I think most humans agree that what Hitler did was wrong. Your basis for condemning him is subjective and objectively irrational. They may be subjectively rational in that you dont want to hurt humans because you dont want to be hurt.

Hitler, again? Ok, let's talk about Hitler.

I have been making the case that Hitler was wrong. My argument goes like this:

1. Hitler was not being fair to the Jews when he killed them.
2. The dictionary defines wrong as "an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause."
3. Therefore Hitler's actions were wrong.

Regarding point #1, I have written the following to justify my assertion that Hitler was not fair to the Jews:

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.

And that argument seems to be quite convincing. In another thread I asked people here if they think Hitler was being fair to the Jews. So far Hitler is losing 8-0. It looks to me like we have a very strong case. Hitler was not being fair.

You tell me my argument is irrational. My argument sounds very rational to me. Please explain to me what is irrational about my argument against Hitler.

You have also complained about my assertion #2, complaining that dictionaries have the wrong definition of wrong. You have not given us a better definition for wrong. Now you seem to be backing down, and conceding that, since we are arguing in English, then it is acceptable for me to use the English definition of words.

Since my assertions #1 and #2 stand firm, then I take it my conclusion stands firm: Hitler was wrong.

I rest my case. Hitler was wrong.

doubtingmerle · Dec 31, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
all humans are created in the image of the objectively existing Eternal Creator and King of the Universe who values us infinitely.

He does? This is what I Peter 1:24-25 says about humans:

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

And here is what the Apostle Paul says about humans:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

--Romans 3:11-19

It sounds to me like they had a very low view of humanity. Humanism, by contrast, says things like:

We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Source: Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association

doubtingmerle · Dec 31, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
But not all humans love other humans and some think they have very little value

Then they are mistaken. For it is impossible for anybody to have any kind of a good life without the contributions of others. If they seek to have the good life, and they rely on others, but do not love those who give them the good life, then they are wrong.

and in fact some environmentalists think the population should be radically reduced because humans are in fact destroying the planet and therefore should be encouraged to go extinct.

Can you give me the name of someone who thinks we should encourage people to go extinct? I never heard that one.

A strong case can be made that there are too many people on this planet. If somebody thinks that the population should stop growing, that is not the same thing as hating people. And it does not mean they want people to go extinct.

Let's try another thought experiment. Suppose the population of the world grows to the point where there is one person per square meter. Suppose there is mass starvation because the planet cannot feed them all. Do you agree with me that it would have been better to limit the population so we did not get to this point?

Personally, I think we should have stopped at 2-4 billion people. The planet seems to be able to handle that size population sustainably with a decent standard of living. We now have 7 billion people, and are rapidly depleting world resources. That can have serious consequences. Since I love people, I would rather have seen 2 billion people on this planet at a time for millions of years, as opposed to a burst of billions and billions of people that overrun the planet. But that ship has already sailed. One only hopes that we limit future population growth.

And some humans believe certain categories of humans do not have the right to live, such as unwanted unborn children.

My assertion has never been that we should end the existence of cognitively aware persons. Rather, I have stated that, "In my opinion, it is better not to bring another person into the state of existence as a cognitively aware person if I know that this new person will experience nothing but pain, misery, and suffering." There is debate as to what point in time a body reaches the point that it should be considered a cognitively aware person. Traditionally, birth has been regarded as the beginning.

If I ask you how old you are, where do you start counting? Do you go by when you were conceived, when you had your first heart beat, when you had your first brainwave, or when you were born? Most of us measure our age from the moment of birth.

muichimotsu · Dec 31, 2020

While of course it is not strong evidence, I do believe that it is relevant how many people believe something is relevant. Such as murder, most people believe murder is wrong. I believe that is evidence that not committing murder is a moral absolute, though it doesnt prove it.
↑

And you just shot yourself in the foot, because you made it remotely relevant as to the truth of something being dependent in any way on how many people believe something. So in the context of eugenics' popularity, it was apparently justified when most of the world had no issue with it, but now we don't, making the whole thing relativistic

So if Castro felt it was his purpose to destroy the Cuban upper class, that was a legitimate purpose for him?

Legitimate purpose for an individual does not always jive with being a social animal in the first place, which is of more importance, because you can't really get anything done without cooperation in society

Ed1wolf · Jan 1, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
And this is your evidence that the book of Jeremiah was written by God?

To be an impressive prophecy, you need to show that the prediction was written before the event, that it was specific, and that it was not something that could easily be guessed. You have done none of these.

A simple search for the word "Zedekiah" in Jeremiah yields a lot of verses, including Jeremiah 52:10-11

And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah.
Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death.

First, the very fact that the account of Zedekiah's death is recorded in Jeremiah shows that at least parts of the book were written after Zedekiah's death. If parts of the book were written after Zedekiah's death, how can it be significant that a verse in that book "predicts" events associated with his death?

And second, Zedekiah might not have literally been "killed by the sword", but Jeremiah says he saw his sons being murdered, then was blinded, bound in chains and put in prison until his death, which is certainly not much better.

I am not sure what "prophecy" you are referring to, but I found this in Jeremiah 34:4-5

Yet hear the word of the LORD, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the LORD of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword:
But thou shalt die in peace: and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee; and they will lament thee, saying, Ah lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the LORD.

OK, Zedekiah did not die "by the sword" but he hardly "died in peace" either. I don't know how you can claim this prediction is so spectacular that it must have been written by God.

The prophecy in chapter 34 occurred before his death. Dying in peace means he did not die in a war and he didnt. So the prophecy was correct. So the prophecy was fulfilled exactly in the events recorded in chapter 52.

dm: Compare that to the most famous prophecy of Jeremiah, that the Babylonian captivity would last 70 years and be followed by a restored, united Jewish kingdom. This failed spectacularly. The captivity in Babylon did not last 70 years. It lasted 49. It was not followed by a restored kingdom, by was followed by continued domination of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.

So if your proof that these are God's words is fulfilled prophecy, you will need to do better than this.

In Jeremiah 25:11-12, the prophet said that the Jews would suffer 70 years of Babylonian domination. Jeremiah also said Babylon would be punished after the 70 years. Both parts of this prophecy were fulfilled. In 609 BC, which is about 2600 years ago, Babylon captured the last Assyrian king and ruled over a vast part of what had been the Assyrian empire, to which the land of Israel previously had been subjugated. Babylon later asserted its dominance by taking many Jews as captives to Babylon, and by destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. The domination ended in 539 BC, when Cyrus, a leader of Persians and Medes, conquered Babylon and brought an end to its empire. Cyrus later offered the captive Jews the freedom to return to their homeland.

doubtingmerle · Jan 1, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
The prophecy in chapter 34 occurred before his death. Dying in peace means he did not die in a war and he didnt. So the prophecy was correct. So the prophecy was fulfilled exactly in the events recorded in chapter 52.

Wait, what?

In chapter 34 Jeremiah predicts what he writes in chapter 52. You find that impressive?

King Zedekiah's enemies captured him, bound him with chains, killed his sons and princes while Zedekiah watched, exiled his people, removed Zedekiah's eyes, and cast him in prison where he died, or, as you put it, he died in peace.

Well, er, uh, OK then, I guess.

In Jeremiah 25:11-12, the prophet said that the Jews would suffer 70 years of Babylonian domination. Jeremiah also said Babylon would be punished after the 70 years. Both parts of this prophecy were fulfilled. In 609 BC, which is about 2600 years ago, Babylon captured the last Assyrian king and ruled over a vast part of what had been the Assyrian empire, to which the land of Israel previously had been subjugated. Babylon later asserted its dominance by taking many Jews as captives to Babylon, and by destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. The domination ended in 539 BC, when Cyrus, a leader of Persians and Medes, conquered Babylon and brought an end to its empire. Cyrus later offered the captive Jews the freedom to return to their homeland.

Uh, Jeremiah was not talking about the fall of Assyria. He was talking about the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, when the Jews were exiled to Babylon. They remained there until 548 BC, when Cyrus allowed them to return. In all they spent approximately 49 years in Babylon. Jeremiah predicts it would be 70. He was wrong.

Jeremiah predicts that both Judah and Israel would return to a united kingdom under the throne of David. This did not happen.

Strike one.

In Daniel chapter 9, we find Daniel troubled by this whole prophecy of 70 years. He is answered by the angel Gabriel, who in essence says "70 years? Don't be silly, we meant 70 weeks, that is, 70 x 7 years!" The writer of the book that talks about Daniel, writing in the time of Antioches, incorrectly thinks the 490 years period ends within a couple of years of his book, and then the great kingdom will be restored.

Strike two.

Along came Mark who explains that the last "week" ends shortly after 70 AD, then we get the kingdom.

Strike three.

Ed1wolf · Jan 1, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
Ah, Ed, so today we are not going to divert this thread into a discussion of Hitler, gay sex, or the cause of the Big Bang. Today's topic is the thermodynamics of planets. Well, uh, OK then.

That is not my claim, but for the record, here is the formula for the change in entropy of a system such as planet earth:

source: Entropy production - Wikipedia

(edit: it appears I cannot copy this formula here. If you want to see the formula, click on the link and look at the first formula under the heading First and Second Law.)

This tells us that there are 3 things that can change the entropy of a system, such as planet earth: heat transfer, mass transfer, and internal processes.

The middle term relates to mass transfer. This is basically zero for planet earth. So we can ignore it. We are left with the first term (heat transfer to and from the earth) and the third term (internal processes on earth). You are correct that the net result of the third term always increases the entropy of earth. But the first term can be either positive or negative depending on the dynamics of the heat flow. For earth, the first term is negative, and tends to balance out the last term which is positive.

Is there a net change of the entropy of earth? For most of the earth's history, the earth has been in steady state and at a near constant entropy. However, the addition of carbon dioxide to the earth's atmosphere has reduced the efficiency at which the earth radiates heat to space. Because of this, the first term of the equation is not radiating heat and decreasing entropy as fast as it used to. The earth is getting warmer. As the earth warms, the thermodynamic entropy increases. For instance, if ocean water evaporates at 70 deg F, the entropy (S) changes from 0.0745 to 1.7566 BTU/lbm, which is a huge increase in entropy. Were the oceans all to evaporate, earth would become one hot mess of high entropy steam with no life. But we digress.

My point was not that the net entropy of the planet decreases, but that the flow of heat into and out of the planet causes decreases in entropy (first term of our equation). However, the last term of our equation degrades this low entropy source to high entropy waste. But in the process, some of that low entropy material can be converted to other low entropy materials that humans consider organized. That is allowed by the second law. As long as the internal processes are causing a net increase of the planet's entropy, some parts of the process are allowed to decrease in entropy. Examples of low entropy products made this way include diamonds, petroleum, glaciers, snowflakes, and trees. All these processes proceed naturally on planet earth and need no intervention of a mind to cause them to happen. Although these objects are low in entropy, they happen because the first term in our equation lowers the net entropy of the earth, and because there are natural mechanisms to do the transformations.

Notice that nowhere in the equation is the presence of a mind postulated. No mind is needed to drive the processes. And no mind can violate the second law. But if a mind finds a mechanism that can use a low entropy source to create other low entropy materials, that is allowed, as long as the net result including the generated waste is a net increase in entropy.

So, no the laws of thermodynamics do not prove that minds must be lowering entropy. And no, minds cannot even lower entropy in violation of the equation above.

So anyway, that is our lessen in thermodynamics for today. Class is dismissed.

Diamonds, petroleum, glaciers, and snowflakes reduction in entropy is just based on the molecular structure and there has to be a temporary huge increase in entropy. Trees assume what we are trying to prove so you cant use them as an example. But I notice the article you provide only refers to examples that ARE manmade, refrigerators, heaters, and etc. If earth also produces no loss in entropy then why does the article not mention it as a natural example?

Where's God?

I Spit On Perfection

Veteran

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads