Where's God?

Ed1wolf · Mar 5, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
Oh. Circular reasoning. Why should I have expected otherwise?
IA: Why does God send people to hell forever?
Ed: Because of the eternal consequences of their sin.
IA: What are these eternal consequences?
Ed: They'll be sent to hell forever because of they sins.

No, that is not my argument. God punishes sinners eternally because their sin has eternal consequences for both themselves and others. Nothing circular there.

ia: You're right, I don't. Probably because it doesn't make sense. I steal a chocolate bar at the age of five and get sentenced to eternal torture for it?
Look, you're free to believe in a God that acts like that. You just can't tell us it's right, because it isn't.

No, most five year olds have not reached the age of accountability so would not be sent to hell. Most psychologists and psychiatrists believe the moral conscience is not fully developed until between the ages of 7-10 but it can vary from person to person.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 6, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
It was great to have you hear. I appreciated reading your posts. I wish you well.

Thank you, Merle! Don't worry, I'm sure we shall see each other again soon!

InterestedAtheist · Mar 6, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Not very good at what?

Not very good at apologetics. I could correct all your mistakes here, but I think you've run out of student credits. 65 pages is enough for now.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 6, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
No, that is not my argument. God punishes sinners eternally because their sin has eternal consequences for both themselves and others. Nothing circular there.

See what I mean about not being good at apologetics?
This is exactly the point I made. You completely ignored it. You simply didn't restated exactly the mistake I had just corrected.

At this point, I think it would be bad for you to keep indulging you with patient answers. I invite you to reread the thread, and consider the possibility that you might have something still to learn. Because so far, just about every single thing you've said has been a mistake.

Best wishes,

IA.

doubtingmerle · Mar 6, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
No, that is not my argument. God punishes sinners eternally because their sin has eternal consequences for both themselves and others.

Who decided that sin would have eternal consequences? If God decided that, why didn't he decide something else?

One would think a benevolent God would make a decision that we would consider humane.

Or if the nature of reality forced that decision on God, is God really in charge?

No, most five year olds have not reached the age of accountability so would not be sent to hell.

Ah, so John 3:17 has it wrong? It says:

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

A six month old baby cannot believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:17 says all who do not believe are condemned.

It seems that you and I agree that John 3:17 is wrong.

doubtingmerle · Mar 6, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Not according to the laws of logic. If the universe is EVERYTHING that exists physically, then according to the laws of logic, its cause cannot be physical, otherwise it would have to create itself which is logically impossible.

"Everything that exists" includes much more than the observable universe. It appears the universe extends far beyond what we could possibly observe due to the limitations of the speed of light. In fact, the universe that started with the Big Bang could be infinite. And in that infinite universe there could be places with vastly different laws and nature of reality. We simply do not know.

Not only that, but there may well be physical reality that is not part of the universe that was created by the Big Bang. This also could be infinite. We don't know.

Your logic is basically:

The argument from incredulity
1. We don't know anything beyond the observable universe.
2. If we don't know something, then Ed1Wolf gets to make it up.
3. Therefore Ed1Wolf is right.

P2 is bunkers.

Maybe, but you would still have to analyze the characteristics of the universe to see what nonphysical entity has the most likely features to produce the characteristics of the universe that we see in it.

Quantum mechanics is a good candidate.

After all, we have strong objective evidence that quantum mechanics is actually real.

IMO, the Christian God has more of those characteristics than any other proposed cause of the universe.

One would think the creator of the universe could overcome chariots of iron.

How can an accident create purposes and laws?

Click to expand...

Maybe the basic laws of reality always existed. Maybe these basic laws of reality created the laws we know in the observable universe.

We don't know. (And no, that does not lead to the conclusion that Ed1Wolf is always right. See above.)

I have proven it see above where I demonstrated He is the creator and lawgiver of the universe.

Uh, when we say you claim to have proven it, you complain it is a straw man. Then you come right back and claim once again that you have proven it.

The Argument from Proof
1. I have proven this.
2. What? You think I have proven it? Straw man!
3. Your logic is invalid. You use a straw man.
4. Therefore I have proven it.

Needless to say, this argument is bunkers.

doubtingmerle · Mar 6, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
At this point, I think it would be bad for you to keep indulging you with patient answers.

I completely understand.

Sometimes it is difficult to communicate any point here that requires more bytes than a tweet. If the response is longer than that, the recipient breaks it into tweets, and then basically complains that each tweet does not include every one of our points. So we need to endless remind people that their complaint was addressed in a different part of the post.

In intellectual arguments, people communicate in paragraphs, papers, and books. There is no way around it. Complex ideas require a lot of words. And that requires an attention span that is longer than a tweet.

But here, we often find ourselves trying to reduce things to a tweet that says as much as possible, and hoping that some of this gets through. I think you and I have found that an interesting challenge, but also something that can drag us away from more important pursuits.

Cheers!

InterestedAtheist · Mar 6, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
Sometimes it is difficult to communicate any point here that requires more bytes than a tweet. If the response is longer than that, the recipient breaks it into tweets, and then basically complains that each tweet does not include every one of our points. So we need to endless remind people that their complaint was addressed in a different part of the post.

Absolutely! Which is why we've had to repeat ourselves to Ed so very, very often.

doubtingmerle · Mar 6, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
my morality is derived from my contact with God and my experience with Him.

Ah, so we are back to this argument:

The argument from Ed1Wolf's feelings
1. Ed1Wolf subjectively feels that God's character is objectively good.
2. It is objective truth that anything that Ed1Wolf subjectively feels is objective truth.
3. Therefore it is objectively true that God's character is objectively good.
4. The Bible's strong recommendations perfectly conform to God's character.
5. Therefore the Bible's strong recommendations about morality are infallible.

P2 is bunkers.
P4 is highly debatable.

And if P4 is true, then giving me everything you have (per Luke 6:30) is an infallible "strong recommendation".

Ed1wolf · Mar 6, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
I have found the opposite to be true. But it doesn’t really matter until you can provide convincing evidence that your gods morals are real and good.

I did, see my post to interested atheist above.

Ed1wolf · Mar 6, 2021

Eight Foot Manchild said:
Also, there is no "law of causality" in physics. In fact, our classical understanding of causality breaks down at the quantum level.

Actually we dont know that for certain. But anyway, the cause of the universe cannot be a quantum event because quantum events require time to occur. But there is no time at time = 0.

Ed1wolf · Mar 6, 2021

Eight Foot Manchild said:
Even granting that Yahweh exists, and that he has a certain moral character, and that you have a reliable means of gleaning what that character is, you are still no closer to bridging the is/ought gap. You still have to make a value judgment to adopt that as your standard, and values are necessarily subjective. "Objective value" is an oxymoron.

Maybe, but His character is objective and is the foundation of His oughts that He has commanded.

doubtingmerle · Mar 7, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
the cause of the universe cannot be a quantum event because quantum events require time to occur. But there is no time at time = 0.

How do you know that time was ever 0? Our universe could have begun at a finite size at a finite time after t=0.

At t=0 the universe would have been a singularity measuring exactly 0 cubic inches and having a mass density that was truly infinite. At that point we have no possible means of calculating what would be before.

But we do not know if it went all the way back to a singularity.

If the universe started slightly bigger than a singularity, such as at Plank Length, then all we can say is that our current knowledge of physics breaks down at that point.

If the universe began at t=0 there is no possible way of knowing what was before. If it began after t= 0, our physics currently cannot understand it, but might some day develop to the point where we do understand it.

Neither of these cases leads to your conclusion, that ed1wolf understands it.

Ed1wolf · Mar 7, 2021

pitabread said:
Genetic entropy isn't a real thing. It's something that Sanford made up based on a misuse/misunderstanding of Kimura's works on neutral evolution.

Genetic entropy itself has no empirical basis. In fact, it's actually contradicted by real world experiments. For example: Evolution at a High Imposed Mutation Rate: Adaptation Obscures the Load in Phage T7

Evolution at high mutation rates is expected to reduce population fitness deterministically by the accumulation of deleterious mutations. A high enough rate should even cause extinction (lethal mutagenesis), a principle motivating the clinical use of mutagenic drugs to treat viral infections. The impact of a high mutation rate on long-term viral fitness was tested here. A large population of the DNA bacteriophage T7 was grown with a mutagen, producing a genomic rate of 4 nonlethal mutations per generation, two to three orders of magnitude above the baseline rate. Fitness—viral growth rate in the mutagenic environment—was predicted to decline substantially; after 200 generations, fitness had increased, rejecting the model.

While this is true, it's probably not a coincidence that Sanford used the word entropy when he came up with the term "genetic entropy". There is a clear allusion to thermodynamic entropy.

No, many studies have confirmed it, though I admit that Sanford is wrong about the RATE of loss of information. He erroneously thinks that it would cause humans to go extinct in about 10,000 years.

Ed1wolf · Mar 7, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
I have. So what?

They both abandoned their Christian founding principles and the result was the greatest horrors in the history of mankind.

Ed1wolf · Mar 7, 2021

InterestedAtheist said:
ed: Fraid so, my relationship and experience with Him has confirmed that He is good. Just like you determine your friends are good.

ia: And yet you are still unable to give a justification for your definition of what goodness is.

Goodness is that which is best for humanity in this world and the next.
↑

ed: Thanks for providing a reference to prove my point.

ia: You misunderstood it. Dawkins is complaining that an immoral man misunderstood the theory of evolution. Not unlike some others I can think of.

No, you misunderstood my point. My point is that there are still evolutionists that believe in social darwinism, irrespective if you or Dawkins dont like him.
↑

ed: Not only can Christian morality be founded on Gods character, it is founded on His objectively existing character. As I earlier demonstrated His likely existence.

ia: None of that is true in the slightest. You're confusing "claim" with "demonstrate"

I am still waiting for you to refute my demonstration.
↑

ed: Only in the sense that His commands are based on His character.

ia: Yes. And that leads us to the question you are unable to answer: how can we tell that God's character is good when you have defined goodness as being based on God's character? It's a circular argument, and you're stuck on it.

No, since we have a moral conscience we can recognize goodness, no circular argument there.
↑

ed: No, he was referring to the original protest that was over the statue of Robert E. Lee. There were good people on both sides of that protest. Then that original protest degraded into a riotous battle between Neo-Nazis and Antifa. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists multiple times. Probably more than any president in history. This was even admitted to by the NY Times.

ia: Trump's sympathies clearly were and are with the Neo-Nazis and KKK, just as (and because) their sympathies were clearly for him. He waited for days to clarify a statement on them, despite repeatedly being asked to, and then - only when he was forced to do so by public opinion - he tried a mealy-mouthed excuse about how he was speaking about "very fine people" who were demonstrating - in favour of the statue of a pro-slavery Confederate leader.

No, he plainly explained it right after it happened. Rewatch the video that was played at the second impeachment. It was just minutes after the news conference started he explicitly condemned Neo Nazis and white supremacists. BTW, Robert E. Lee was actually AGAINST slavery, he just thought it should occur gradually so blacks could learn how to take care of themselves in a capitalistic society.

ia: Why pretend? The simple truth is the "Jews shall not replace us!" people saw Trump as their hero, and he saw them, correctly, as his supporters.

All politicians have crazy supporters. Obama was supported by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam a virulent racist leader and group.
↑

ed: No, genocide is the destroying of a people group just because of who they are. Moses and the hebrews were destroying groups because of the evil that they had done.
Christians are commanded to influence society for good. ie being salt and light in the world and society.

ia: “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”
Yuk.
Moses and the Hebrews were exterminating their enemies. Including the women and children. Why bother to deny it? After all, according to you, God created goodness. So, why not just say that killing innocent people is good?

They were Israels enemies because they were Yahweh's representatives on earth and they hated Yahweh. They were not innocent, all humans are born sinners and deserve to die at birth. The hebrews were God's hand to reveal that their time was up.
↑

ed: Fraid not. As I demonstrated earlier, American slavery violates Biblical teaching.

ia: As I've demonstrated frequently, American slavery was founded on a perfectly correct interpretation of Biblical teachings.

And I refuted your demonstration.
↑

ed: it is a plain violation of the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment.

ia: Nonsense.

Prove it.

doubtingmerle · Mar 8, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
all humans are born sinners and deserve to die at birth. The hebrews were God's hand to reveal that their time was up.

I disagree.

JohnClay · Mar 8, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
They were not innocent, all humans are born sinners and deserve to die at birth.

A Christian friend told me about
Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

InterestedAtheist · Mar 8, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
They both abandoned their Christian founding principles and the result was the greatest horrors in the history of mankind.

Here's a quote from historian Andrew Marr:

"It [the twentieth century] was a century of a great apparent paradox. The killing was greater than ever. In raw numbers it outstripped even the Mongols, all the plague-armed catastrophes of the European invasion of the Americas, and all earlier wars. This killing happened because leaders arose promising to radically improve humankind, or part of humankind, and were able to exercise near-total power. The ‘bloodiest century in history’ has become a cliché of history. Yet it is challenged by, among others, the scientist Steven Pinker, who points out that the terrifyingly large numbers of deaths are partly accounted for by the vastly greater number of people alive: you can’t kill people who are not there. If the blood-count is adjusted for population, then modern times do not look quite as bad."

Christians have plenty of wars, murder and violence in their past. And if they had lived in a time of billions of people instead of thousands, and with weapons like nuclear bombs, instead of cannons and swords, it seems quite likely that the sentiment "Kill them all, God will know His own," would have led to atrocities as bad or worse as the red crimes.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 8, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Goodness is that which is best for humanity in this world and the next.

You've just demolished your own argument.

Ed1wolf said:
No, you misunderstood my point. My point is that there are still evolutionists that believe in social darwinism, irrespective if you or Dawkins dont like him.

People believe all kinds of crazy things.

Ed1wolf said:
I am still waiting for you to refute my demonstration.

I'm still waiting for you to make one.

Ed1wolf said:
No, since we have a moral conscience we can recognize goodness, no circular argument there.

If I were to explain your mistake, it would be about the tenth time I have done so.

Ed1wolf said:
No, he plainly explained it right after it happened. Rewatch the video that was played at the second impeachment. It was just minutes after the news conference started he explicitly condemned Neo Nazis and white supremacists. BTW, Robert E. Lee was actually AGAINST slavery, he just thought it should occur gradually so blacks could learn how to take care of themselves in a capitalistic society.

What's plain is that Trump condemned racists only when he was forced to.

Ed1wolf said:
All politicians have crazy supporters. Obama was supported by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam a virulent racist leader and group.

Yes, but with Trump, most of his supporters were crazy. And he deliberately spoke to them, and encouraged others to be like them.

Ed1wolf said:
They were Israels enemies because they were Yahweh's representatives on earth and they hated Yahweh. They were not innocent, all humans are born sinners and deserve to die at birth. The hebrews were God's hand to reveal that their time was up.

Nonsense. Not all humans deserve to die at birth. Barely any humans deserve to die at all, which is why the death penalty is a hotly debated topic and even its prononents advocate it for only a tiny minority of people.

Ed1wolf said:
And I refuted your demonstration.

No, you didn't.

Ed1wolf said:
Prove it.

You prove it. You're the one who claimed it.

Where's God?

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Veteran

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Married Mouth-Breather

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads