A fact creationists should know.

[Danyc]

Or he routinely harvested the fish for a great feast in heaven.

Harvesting physical fish for a spiritual feast?

Also: bump.

 

[razzelflabben]

No death + planet = no room.

God, as usual, drops the ball in the foresight department. See what happens when you take the fable literally?

Now I asked this question previously and got no response, and saying it now is sure to insight you to label me a creationist, despite what I really believe, but here it goes...what would possibly make you think that God couldn't give the command to stop procreating once the world was full? The bottom line, is that it didn't happen to come to the point when we would know, so your argument seems like nothing more than an attempt to dissolve an argument without enough evidence to even know what the argument you wish to dissolve is actually saying.

Oh, and btw, I am neither a creationist nor an evolutionist, so be sure to read the argument for what it is, a problem with your argument and your critical thinking, not of the things you want to prove for all to believe and agree with.

 

[razzelflabben]

So, he either created death, or slowly expanded the planet until it could hold all the fish?

The first option would counteract your opinon, and the second would significantly increase the gravitational pull in such a manner that would kill them all anyway.

Or he routinely harvested the fish for a great feast in heaven.

Praise tha layrd!

Or HE says, okay, the world is full, stop procreating, and just enjoy the world I created.


How your arguments fit the evolution/creation debate is all I will comment on until this thread is moved to apologetics about God and who He is. Just so you know why I am not commenting on much of this.

 

[razzelflabben]

My son is home for a week before shipping out to Iraq, I'll be away from the computer most of the week, sorry.

 

[Tomk80]

My son is home for a week before shipping out to Iraq, I'll be away from the computer most of the week, sorry.

Have a good week. Hope your son will return safe!

 

[razzelflabben]

Have a good week. Hope your son will return safe!

thanks, we will miss him while he is gone.

I still would like someone to answer my question though, how does the OP assumptions fit the actual argument against creation or biblical creation if you like? I can't for the life of me figure out what makes you all think this is a strong argument! Can you enlighten me while I wait for everyone to be ready to leave?

 

[razzelflabben]

Have a good week. Hope your son will return safe!

thanks, we will miss him while he is gone.

I still would like someone to answer my question though, how does the OP assumptions fit the actual argument against creation or biblical creation if you like? I can't for the life of me figure out what makes you all think this is a strong argument! Can you enlighten me while I wait for everyone to be ready to leave?

 

[Tomk80]

I still would like someone to answer my question though, how does the OP assumptions fit the actual argument against creation or biblical creation if you like? I can't for the life of me figure out what makes you all think this is a strong argument! Can you enlighten me while I wait for everyone to be ready to leave?

Given that this is a consol thread, I don't expect it, or the argument in it, to make sense in the first place. Generally these threads make me think this:

But his threads are good for posting lolcats.

Anyway, here is my take on the argument:

Many young earth creationists assert that there was no death before the fall. Yet before the fall God's command was to be fruitful and multiply. So, this would necessarily lead to a full earth. Probably an earth especially full with fish like mackerel, and probably very fast, given the spawning rate of fish. So at some point, your going to run out of room.

Now, one can put forth some arguments that would slow down this "filling of the earth". Mayhaps flies only produced two offspring a year instead of hundreds. However, these arguments only delay the eventual outcome and are no solution to the problem.

One could argue that at some point God would have deemed fit to halt reproduction alltogether, by uttering another command. And if God has the power to order everything on earth to hump, he can surely order them to stop humping. And why not? The problem is that it is kind of a make-shift solution, don't you think?

So the central problem of a world without death but with reproduction is that God would need to impose new countermeasures to fix the problems such a world would run into. Seems lacking in foresight. I admit that it isn't a watertight argument, and you can ad-hoc your way out of it pretty easily, but I would perhaps expect a more thought-out solution from the get-go from an omnipotent being?

 

[razzelflabben]

Given that this is a consol thread, I don't expect it, or the argument in it, to make sense in the first place. Generally these threads make me think this:

But his threads are good for posting lolcats.

thanks that helps, I think!

Anyway, here is my take on the argument:

Many young earth creationists assert that there was no death before the fall. Yet before the fall God's command was to be fruitful and multiply. So, this would necessarily lead to a full earth. Probably an earth especially full with fish like mackerel, and probably very fast, given the spawning rate of fish. So at some point, your going to run out of room.

several problems with these assumptions. If we are to assume YEC here, we must also assume creation as stated in Gen. Of which we have 3 basic problems when it comes to the OP argument which is why I am so confused by the argument.
1. If God is able to command life to reproduce, He is equally able to command life to stop reproducing, more on that soon.
2. Life didn't reproduce that exact same day, in fact, man isn't recorded to have any offspring until after the fall. Now to be fair this could be for several different reasons, however, the bottom line is that reproduction, even then, seemed to take time.
3. The issue of different reproduction rates was addressed later in Gen. when we read about the flood, therefore we can assume that God knew the problem before you were even a blimp on a screen somewhere in the vast universe.

These issues and more make the assumptions here very confusing as to an argument against creation and would in fact seem to have the opposite affect, and strengthen the YEC argument.

Now, one can put forth some arguments that would slow down this "filling of the earth". Mayhaps flies only produced two offspring a year instead of hundreds. However, these arguments only delay the eventual outcome and are no solution to the problem.

where was this argument presented. One of the things that always tires me in evolution/creation arguments is the idea that if one argument isn't provided, we can just create that argument and call it wise.

In fact, I remember someone here making the comment that the argument presented wasn't the one expected, and yet the given argument was ignored in exchange for one that wasn't given. This shows a lack of respect for others opinions.

One could argue that at some point God would have deemed fit to halt reproduction alltogether, by uttering another command. And if God has the power to order everything on earth to hump, he can surely order them to stop humping. And why not? The problem is that it is kind of a make-shift solution, don't you think?

The problem you have here is that you are trying to eliminate the arguments without basing your objections on nothing by bias. Look at it this way. I can command my children to pick up the floor. What is make shift in saying that I can equally command them to stop working and go play? There is nothing inconsistant in the argument and it would seem that the complaints to the response are the make shift, not the argument itself. In other words, it is illogical to say that a God who has control over who reproduces doesn't also have control over who doesn't and when they don't.

So the central problem of a world without death but with reproduction is that God would need to impose new countermeasures to fix the problems such a world would run into. Seems lacking in foresight. I admit that it isn't a watertight argument, and you can ad-hoc your way out of it pretty easily, but I would perhaps expect a more thought-out solution from the get-go from an omnipotent being?

I got to go, but quickly, the lack of foresight issue is so weak in this argument to make it laughable. If you want to argue lack of foresight, I'll give you a list that will turn most christians into a fit of tizzy, but to do so, you need to go to the apologetics thread.

 

[Tomk80]

thanks that helps, I think! several problems with these assumptions. If we are to assume YEC here, we must also assume creation as stated in Gen. Of which we have 3 basic problems when it comes to the OP argument which is why I am so confused by the argument.
1. If God is able to command life to reproduce, He is equally able to command life to stop reproducing, more on that soon.
2. Life didn't reproduce that exact same day, in fact, man isn't recorded to have any offspring until after the fall. Now to be fair this could be for several different reasons, however, the bottom line is that reproduction, even then, seemed to take time.
3. The issue of different reproduction rates was addressed later in Gen. when we read about the flood, therefore we can assume that God knew the problem before you were even a blimp on a screen somewhere in the vast universe.

These issues and more make the assumptions here very confusing as to an argument against creation and would in fact seem to have the opposite affect, and strengthen the YEC argument.

where was this argument presented. One of the things that always tires me in evolution/creation arguments is the idea that if one argument isn't provided, we can just create that argument and call it wise.

I'm skipping this part for a moment, because it is addressed below again.
I didn't make the claim that it was presented, I claimed that this was one possible objection to the original argument.

Nevertheless, you presented a similar argument in your own posts with points 2 and 3. Both of them don't cut it, because both of them only delay the earth filling up.

In fact, I remember someone here making the comment that the argument presented wasn't the one expected, and yet the given argument was ignored in exchange for one that wasn't given. This shows a lack of respect for others opinions.

If you don't mind I'm ignoring this, I really can't see what you mean precisely and to whom it applies. I don't think it is really relevant to the issue at hand, which to me seems to be
reproduction - death + limited amount of earth = problem.

The problem you have here is that you are trying to eliminate the arguments without basing your objections on nothing by bias. Look at it this way. I can command my children to pick up the floor. What is make shift in saying that I can equally command them to stop working and go play? There is nothing inconsistant in the argument and it would seem that the complaints to the response are the make shift, not the argument itself. In other words, it is illogical to say that a God who has control over who reproduces doesn't also have control over who doesn't and when they don't.

Yet why would we expect God to act like humans. As far as I can see, the situation between parents telling children to do this, do that on the one hand, and God creating a functional eco-system on the other, is a valid I think. Sure, as I said, it could have gone the way you state here. I just don't think that is very convincing. But then I don't find a literal reading of the bible convincing in the first place, so I'm possibly the last to ask.

I got to go, but quickly, the lack of foresight issue is so weak in this argument to make it laughable. If you want to argue lack of foresight, I'll give you a list that will turn most christians into a fit of tizzy, but to do so, you need to go to the apologetics thread.

I see where you are coming from and I agree that, as far as creationism goes, this is one of the weak arguments against it (if an argument at all). Given the set-up of ecology as a self-sustaining system, I don't think the argument from lack-of-forsight is laughable, but I will happily admit that this will be more something of personal preference than of logical reasoning.

If with "list" you mean prophecies, sorry, been there, had that debate, find it extremely unconvincing and boring too (mind you, I first found it interesting and discussed it, then unconvincing and only after that boring).

 

[razzelflabben]

thanks that helps, I think! several problems with these assumptions. If we are to assume YEC here, we must also assume creation as stated in Gen. Of which we have 3 basic problems when it comes to the OP argument which is why I am so confused by the argument.
1. If God is able to command life to reproduce, He is equally able to command life to stop reproducing, more on that soon.
2. Life didn't reproduce that exact same day, in fact, man isn't recorded to have any offspring until after the fall. Now to be fair this could be for several different reasons, however, the bottom line is that reproduction, even then, seemed to take time.
3. The issue of different reproduction rates was addressed later in Gen. when we read about the flood, therefore we can assume that God knew the problem before you were even a blimp on a screen somewhere in the vast universe.

These issues and more make the assumptions here very confusing as to an argument against creation and would in fact seem to have the opposite affect, and strengthen the YEC argument.


I'm skipping this part for a moment, because it is addressed below again.
I didn't make the claim that it was presented, I claimed that this was one possible objection to the original argument.

Nevertheless, you presented a similar argument in your own posts with points 2 and 3. Both of them don't cut it, because both of them only delay the earth filling up.


If you don't mind I'm ignoring this, I really can't see what you mean precisely and to whom it applies. I don't think it is really relevant to the issue at hand, which to me seems to be
reproduction - death + limited amount of earth = problem.


Yet why would we expect God to act like humans.

man was made in God's image according to Gen. so why wouldn't we expect God to act like man and man to act like God except for the things that are specified as different?

As far as I can see, the situation between parents telling children to do this, do that on the one hand, and God creating a functional eco-system on the other, is a valid I think. Sure, as I said, it could have gone the way you state here. I just don't think that is very convincing. But then I don't find a literal reading of the bible convincing in the first place, so I'm possibly the last to ask.

all I am saying is that it is reasonable to expect that a God who can command life to procreate can also command that same life to not procreate. Look at it this way. The OP makes the assumption (though the point is to show it wrong, it must be assumed in order to get to the point of dismissal) that God's command to procreate was by His authority. In other words, the OP assumes that God had the authority to command life to procreate. there is no jump in faith or logic or anything else to assume that a being that has the authority to command procreation equally has the authority to put an end to it. Thus the premise of the OP is shown wrong by the logical conclusions that we draw. Now again, this is not to say that YEC has it right, only to say that the OP argument is a flawed argument from the get go. Remember, we are talking about logic here, not faith. Logically speaking, a God with the authority to command procreation equally has the authority to command that same life to stop procreating. It's a logical assumption, not a leap of faith.

I see where you are coming from and I agree that, as far as creationism goes, this is one of the weak arguments against it (if an argument at all). Given the set-up of ecology as a self-sustaining system, I don't think the argument from lack-of-forsight is laughable, but I will happily admit that this will be more something of personal preference than of logical reasoning.

Which is exactly the point, thank you. Logically speaking the foresight issue raised here is laughable, in that there can be no case made based on a logical approach to the question. Now as to the foresight of God in other matters, I'd love to take on the challenge in apologetics, but when I do most people get very upset because I don't give the same arguments they are expecting and they don't know how to answer it. Ah well, such is life. Bottom line here is that logically, one cannot build a case for evolution on the matter of procreation.

If with "list" you mean prophecies, sorry, been there, had that debate, find it extremely unconvincing and boring too (mind you, I first found it interesting and discussed it, then unconvincing and only after that boring).

I don't do much at all with the prophecies mostly because people who are willfully against God and the bible will be able to argue their way around them for an eternity. What I am referring to is much broader than the prophecies, in fact, many of the one's I had in mind at that moment in time were about the fall of man and the very early days of the creation, but again, that would be for apologetics so not really appropriate for here.

 

[Tomk80]

man was made in God's image according to Gen. so why wouldn't we expect God to act like man and man to act like God except for the things that are specified as different?

Where is it specified that he behaved different in this case?

all I am saying is that it is reasonable to expect that a God who can command life to procreate can also command that same life to not procreate.

I never said that line of thought was unreasonable. I said it is less preferable.

Look at it this way. The OP makes the assumption (though the point is to show it wrong, it must be assumed in order to get to the point of dismissal) that God's command to procreate was by His authority. In other words, the OP assumes that God had the authority to command life to procreate. there is no jump in faith or logic or anything else to assume that a being that has the authority to command procreation equally has the authority to put an end to it. Thus the premise of the OP is shown wrong by the logical conclusions that we draw. Now again, this is not to say that YEC has it right, only to say that the OP argument is a flawed argument from the get go. Remember, we are talking about logic here, not faith. Logically speaking, a God with the authority to command procreation equally has the authority to command that same life to stop procreating. It's a logical assumption, not a leap of faith.

Sure, but you'll have to admit that to do so, you are drifting even farther away from observable reality then you already were with YEC. But I guess if you've left observable reality in the first place, stepping away from it even further isn't going to matter much.

Which is exactly the point, thank you. Logically speaking the foresight issue raised here is laughable, in that there can be no case made based on a logical approach to the question. Now as to the foresight of God in other matters, I'd love to take on the challenge in apologetics, but when I do most people get very upset because I don't give the same arguments they are expecting and they don't know how to answer it. Ah well, such is life.

Bottom line here is that logically, one cannot build a case for evolution on the matter of procreation.

Nobody implied such. It was raised as a case against creationism, not as an argument in favor of evolution.

I don't do much at all with the prophecies mostly because people who are willfully against God and the bible will be able to argue their way around them for an eternity. What I am referring to is much broader than the prophecies, in fact, many of the one's I had in mind at that moment in time were about the fall of man and the very early days of the creation, but again, that would be for apologetics so not really appropriate for here.

Okay.

 

[razzelflabben]

Where is it specified that he behaved different in this case?

You asked what would make us assume God would behave like man, referring to the analogy of a parent telling their child to clean but having the same authority to say okay, stop cleaning now. So I say that we could expect them to behave the same way here because it isn't specified that He would be acting differently and you asked me where it is specified that He behaved differently in this case? I'm confused, what do you think I said?

I never said that line of thought was unreasonable. I said it is less preferable.

preferable is an interesting concept from people who claim to love logic. Preference is all about personal likes and dislikes, which in essence invalidates any superior understanding, moving all possibles to the realm of equally possible. I am not sure that anyone on this debate would want us to assume that all thoughts on life are equivalent because they are only preferences and not logical thought.

Sure, but you'll have to admit that to do so, you are drifting even farther away from observable reality then you already were with YEC. But I guess if you've left observable reality in the first place, stepping away from it even further isn't going to matter much.

I don't even know what your point here is. If we look at the OP, it assumes that God has the authority to command life to procreate. Using that premise, and none others, IOW's we aren't using any other not already stated premise but only the premises of the OP, following those premises to their logical conclusion, and find that the OP is more about the logic of creation than the illogic of that creation. IOW's the opposite affect from what was desired. Now if you want to talk about something else, we can do so but you need to start a new thread for that. This discussion is about the premises and observations in the OP of which the conclusion is that the observations are of no harm to the YEC theory. Pretty cut and dry as far as logic goes.

Nobody implied such. It was raised as a case against creationism, not as an argument in favor of evolution.


Okay.

again, I'm confused. Every evolutionist I have ever talked to, including you, has used the premise that there are only two groups of people, evolutionists and creationists of which only one strand of creationist exists, that of YEC ist. In fact, when I have said that I am neither evolutionist nor creationist, I have been told point blank on occasion that that isn't possible, I am either evolutionist or creationist. When I have pointed to the bible in the past, as the authority for what a creationist claims to believe, I was told point blank that it doesn't matter what the bible says, it is about what they believe. IOW's the general thought here is that there are only two possibles, evolution and YEC. I have disagreed with this assumption from day one to this very day and am not about to give in to this false assumption.

None the less, maybe I misstated my point. The point is that the OP does nothing to dismiss the ideas of creation nor does it do anything to falsify YEC, nor improve the possibilities of evolution. All the OP does is show a lack of logical thought from an evolutionist when discussing creation and what it is. This lack of basic knowledge and understanding is the hallmark of the debate, and just so we are clear, it goes both ways. The debate primarily exists because neither side even knows what the other side believes and therefore cannot logically think any of it through. Which is a very sad comment to make about people who pride themselves in logical thought. Now as to the "Faith" based beliefs, those who base their beliefs on the admitted faith and not logic, it is to be expected. But from the side of the argument that claims logical thought, that is a disturbing lack of logical thought you are supporting especially with your comment about preference. I really did expect more from you. I really did think you were capable of logical thought, only to find out that you aren't about logical thought at all but rather about preferences. This revelation makes it a sad day for me.

 

[Tomk80]

You asked what would make us assume God would behave like man, referring to the analogy of a parent telling their child to clean but having the same authority to say okay, stop cleaning now. So I say that we could expect them to behave the same way here because it isn't specified that He would be acting differently and you asked me where it is specified that He behaved differently in this case? I'm confused, what do you think I said?

I guess my problem is with the entire statement. It basically says that God would act like a human, except when he doesn't. I can't bring anything against that statement, since it doesn't really state anything. But that makes that statement a bit useless.

preferable is an interesting concept from people who claim to love logic. Preference is all about personal likes and dislikes, which in essence invalidates any superior understanding, moving all possibles to the realm of equally possible. I am not sure that anyone on this debate would want us to assume that all thoughts on life are equivalent because they are only preferences and not logical thought.

Preferences do not only indicate personal likes and dislikes. Things can also be preferable on a rational, logical basis. In this case, the logical basis being that it seems more efficient to create an earth that governs itself, instead of one where God would need to constantly step in. But perhaps God is more like a kid playing with his model trains. What do I know.

I don't even know what your point here is. If we look at the OP, it assumes that God has the authority to command life to procreate. Using that premise, and none others, IOW's we aren't using any other not already stated premise but only the premises of the OP, following those premises to their logical conclusion, and find that the OP is more about the logic of creation than the illogic of that creation. IOW's the opposite affect from what was desired. Now if you want to talk about something else, we can do so but you need to start a new thread for that. This discussion is about the premises and observations in the OP of which the conclusion is that the observations are of no harm to the YEC theory. Pretty cut and dry as far as logic goes.

The point is that what we observe now are animals with certain characteristics. When you want to claim they were different in the past, you do so without any evidence for that claim. Now I, as someone who thinks it is important someone to base his beliefs on evidence, would see that as a problem. But for most YEC's, whos standpoint does not derive from evidence in the first place, I guess this is not a big deal. If you've left the standard of evidence, there is nothing you cannot imagine, I guess. No matter how logical the thought that God could diminish reproduction rates or stop reproduction from a "God commands"-POV, it is one step further from the obervable evidence than you already went with the view that God created the earth in 6 days to begin with.

again, I'm confused. Every evolutionist I have ever talked to, including you, has used the premise that there are only two groups of people, evolutionists and creationists of which only one strand of creationist exists, that of YEC ist. In fact, when I have said that I am neither evolutionist nor creationist, I have been told point blank on occasion that that isn't possible, I am either evolutionist or creationist. When I have pointed to the bible in the past, as the authority for what a creationist claims to believe, I was told point blank that it doesn't matter what the bible says, it is about what they believe. IOW's the general thought here is that there are only two possibles, evolution and YEC. I have disagreed with this assumption from day one to this very day and am not about to give in to this false assumption.

I started to respond to this, but I won't. I don't see the point of responding, and I think it is badly of topic.

None the less, maybe I misstated my point. The point is that the OP does nothing to dismiss the ideas of creation nor does it do anything to falsify YEC, nor improve the possibilities of evolution. All the OP does is show a lack of logical thought from an evolutionist when discussing creation and what it is. This lack of basic knowledge and understanding is the hallmark of the debate, and just so we are clear, it goes both ways. The debate primarily exists because neither side even knows what the other side believes and therefore cannot logically think any of it through. Which is a very sad comment to make about people who pride themselves in logical thought. Now as to the "Faith" based beliefs, those who base their beliefs on the admitted faith and not logic, it is to be expected. But from the side of the argument that claims logical thought, that is a disturbing lack of logical thought you are supporting especially with your comment about preference. I really did expect more from you. I really did think you were capable of logical thought, only to find out that you aren't about logical thought at all but rather about preferences. This revelation makes it a sad day for me.

Let me state it like this. The thought that once creatures start reproducing, without death in the picture and with a finite amount of room, things start to fill up, is inherently logical. The argument that God could halt reproduction at some point is also logical, I already stated that. But it does have two problems. The first is that it necessitates a God who would constantly interfere, in order to maintain his creation, which does not seem very efficient and does not seem in line with the idea that the creation was finished on the sixth day. The second problem with this ad-hoc reasoning that God could have stopped the creatures from reproducing is that it really is entirely made up anyway. Sure, there is nothing you can say against it from a "God commands and it happened"-POV, but in the end you're just Making-Stuff-Up to let God stop a feature he created in the first place.

 

[razzelflabben]

I guess my problem is with the entire statement. It basically says that God would act like a human, except when he doesn't. I can't bring anything against that statement, since it doesn't really state anything. But that makes that statement a bit useless.

I didn't know that you felt compelled to argue the point, I thought it was just a fact that must be weighed into the equation. Consider this, man doesn't have the authority to speak into existence the universe. Therefore it is something different than we would expect from man. What is hard to understand about that? Why is that so problematic for you?

Preferences do not only indicate personal likes and dislikes. Things can also be preferable on a rational, logical basis. In this case, the logical basis being that it seems more efficient to create an earth that governs itself, instead of one where God would need to constantly step in. But perhaps God is more like a kid playing with his model trains. What do I know.

Logically, the preference is to a being that can command procreation could also command none procreation. That is about as logical as it can possibly get, which means that it is the preferable rational, logical conclusion. That is why you surprised me, your objections are not based on logic and rational thinking, but rather on emotional responses.

Now on to the earth governing itself. This is a new argument, one that we can deal with if you like. First off, the bible as a whole (not limited to Gen.) says that God does set the world in motion and let's it "run." But it also says that He watches over it and intervenes when necessary. Consider any creation that exists. If something goes wrong, the creator might step in, and it doesn't have to be a problem with the creation, but rather the application. For example, consider the current propaganda about the earth, and pollution. The flaw isn't in the creation, but rather in the application of the creation.

Now this brings about the idea of man's flaws of which we could talk for weeks and months and years and never find a solution because you want to only see things from one perspective and I will only respond to you from a different perspective. The key is to see both perspectives before coming to a conclusion. A key that an incredibly small number of people are willing to do. That I think would be a flaw to consider when talking about God's creation, the flaw that man for the most part, refuses to see things from all perspectives before making a judgment call.

The point is that what we observe now are animals with certain characteristics. When you want to claim they were different in the past, you do so without any evidence for that claim. Now I, as someone who thinks it is important someone to base his beliefs on evidence, would see that as a problem. But for most YEC's, whos standpoint does not derive from evidence in the first place, I guess this is not a big deal. If you've left the standard of evidence, there is nothing you cannot imagine, I guess. No matter how logical the thought that God could diminish reproduction rates or stop reproduction from a "God commands"-POV, it is one step further from the obervable evidence than you already went with the view that God created the earth in 6 days to begin with.

I am assuming here that your use of the word you is you all and not directed at me. In fact, I personally think that one of the most damaging evidences for YEC is that animals have specific characteristics that are not consistant with the YEC ideas. I also will point out here that Gen. to my knowledge says nothing about no death, only humans didn't die. But that again is off topic. We are talking about procreating and logically speaking it is no problem at all for creation, young earth or otherwise. In fact, the evidence would show it to be no problem and that doesn't even have to come down to what God could or could not do.

I started to respond to this, but I won't. I don't see the point of responding, and I think it is badly of topic.


Let me state it like this. The thought that once creatures start reproducing, without death in the picture and with a finite amount of room, things start to fill up, is inherently logical. The argument that God could halt reproduction at some point is also logical, I already stated that. But it does have two problems. The first is that it necessitates a God who would constantly interfere, in order to maintain his creation, which does not seem very efficient and does not seem in line with the idea that the creation was finished on the sixth day. The second problem with this ad-hoc reasoning that God could have stopped the creatures from reproducing is that it really is entirely made up anyway. Sure, there is nothing you can say against it from a "God commands and it happened"-POV, but in the end you're just Making-Stuff-Up to let God stop a feature he created in the first place.

You are so interesting, you bend over backwards to support your personal agenda that you don't really think about what you are saying.

Let's see, where to begin. The logic is with a God who has the power to command reproduction to equally have the power to command that reproduction would stop. That is the only LOGICAL response. All other responses are emotional ad hoc dismissals of the evidence.

As to the issue of continuing to get involved, that to has a logical explanation. For example, when a couple has children, do they just go at it until the children stop coming or do they get involved in the control of how many children they have? (majority here, not fringe) Or what of a career, do you just get a job and not try to move up the ladder? Point is that the nature of things is that we continue to get involved on some level. Now if the assumption that man was created in God's image is accurate (which at this point is the assumption for a look at logic), then we must logically assume that it is reasonable and expected that a creator God could and would remain involved in His creation. Thus it is not a problem for logic to say God would once again become involved. It is logical to expect a creator to remain involved in that creation. Anything else is illogical by nature and would only prove to be bias argument without merit.

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry Razzel, but your latest post is once more nicely packed with tangents and ad-homs. I'll pass from responding, because given your last post, I don't see this going anywhere but down.

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry Razzel, but your latest post is once more nicely packed with tangents and ad-homs. I'll pass from responding, because given your last post, I don't see this going anywhere but down.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry Razzel, but your latest post is once more nicely packed with tangents and ad-homs. I'll pass from responding, because given your last post, I don't see this going anywhere but down.

unfortunately that is what happens when people who claim logic as their authority are faced with logic that doesn't fit their theologies.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, let's look at the main point, that of logic.

What is a preferred logic over "a being who can command life to procreate is equally able to command life to stop procreating?" Your claim was that the preferred logic is not that stated above. So show us how a logical assumption would be made that is preferred except through bias and prejudice?

And this reduces all our discussion down to the basic assumptions of the OP, therefore, you can't claim tangents and ad homs.

 

[consol]

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, let's look at the main point, that of logic.

What is a preferred logic over "a being who can command life to procreate is equally able to command life to stop procreating?" Your claim was that the preferred logic is not that stated above. So show us how a logical assumption would be made that is preferred except through bias and prejudice?

Logic... the word can not be used when discussing religion, because all religions are illogical,
religions are beliefs and do not deal with logic, if religions were logical they would not be beliefs.

 

[razzelflabben]

Logic... the word can not be used when discussing religion, because all religions are illogical,
religions are beliefs and do not deal with logic, if religions were logical they would not be beliefs.

problem is, we aren't talking about a religion here, we are talking about the idea that if God created life to not die, then commanded that life to procreate, the world would quickly become overpopulated. That is not religion, it is a belief as to what would happen if, you know, a theory, and drawing a conclusion from the premise about what we would expect to happen and what we would not expect to happen. The OP is all about the logical consequences of our existence if...it does not say we are discussing religion, religious beliefs, etc. It simply states that if X then Y. Which is nothing but pure scientific process which includes but is not limited to logic.

That being said, the pure logic of the thing is that if a being has the authority to command life to procreate, then that being would logically have the authority to command life to stop procreating and the whole premise of the OP is false from the get go. But again, that is logic not religion, if you want to talk religion, we should get something going on one of the apologetic threads, what do you say, do you want to talk about religion or the OP?