A fact creationists should know.

[Tomk80]

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.

Forget it Razzel. Your post was full of ad-homs. It had valid points as well as misunderstandings, but if you cannot make your points without insults, the discussion is over. Good bye.

 

[razzelflabben]

Forget it Razzel. Your post was full of ad-homs. It had valid points as well as misunderstandings, but if you cannot make your points without insults, the discussion is over. Good bye.

What did you find insulting so that I can avoid it in the future? You accused me of offering tangents and ad homs which were directly addressing comments you raised, and many times I mentioned that it was off topic and should be discussed other places. Was that the supposed insult?

Or maybe directly of this post?
unfortunately that is what happens when people who claim logic as their authority are faced with logic that doesn't fit their theologies.[/quote] is the insult here where I talk about how discussions like this usually go, sighting no one in particular for being at fault, only looking at the general pattern of things. You know, observations. Is that the insult?

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

or is it here, where I give you the benefit of the doubt and say in essence that though you fit the pattern of people who contridict themselves, I think higher of you than this and will assume that you didn't intend to fall into the same patterns. Is that the insult, my compliments to your character?

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?

Maybe the insult is here, where I ask you to show what you said as logical. What kind of insult can you derive from a question asking you to explain a previous comment you made. Ah well, so far I don't see an insult, but it's your call, is this the insult you are referring to?

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

that only leaves us with this comment that might be taken as an insult. I was accused of tangents and ad homs of which I took personally and determined to remove from the discussion, as any reasonable person would do. To that end, I shortened the response back to only what the OP dealt with so that you could add what you wanted and we could be back on track. Is this the insult you refer too?

I can't stop insulting you if I don't know what you are taking as an insult. Please for my own peace of mind point out to me the insult that you are so offended by and why you took it as an insult so that I can improve my behavior. Thanks!

 

[Tomk80]

I really shouldn't do this, but okay, I'll go over your post.

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? 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.

It isn't problematic for me. Many religions, among them different Christian denominations, proclaim God as inherently unknowable. But when you say that God is the same as you humans, unless otherwise specified, you need to say where this is specified and in what way. Because just saying that God behaves like a human except when he doesn't, includes everything and therefore nothing.

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.

How is it a problem in the application. How is creation "applied"?

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.

It is? How? What is the difference between "earth and it's ecosystems" as the creation and as the application.

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.

Off-topic tangent. Whether or not Man would have "fallen" is irrelevant to the subject at hand. If man would not have "fallen", limited space + reproduction - death = no room would apply as well.

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.

What do you mean when you say "the evidence show it be no problem"? The evidence shows that animals reproduce and die, creating a balance between life and death. If you take out death (without evidence for that) you are still left with reproduction. Sure, you can drift even further away from the evidence. As I said before, when you've discarded a lot of it already, a bit more ain't gonna hurt.

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

Thanks for the insult. I do think about what I am saying, thank you very much. I am putting time and effort in these posts, but I'll happily stop that if that is not appreciated.

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.

No, they are at best dismissals of the logic, not of the evidence. That's the point, isn't it. I have already stated that from a YEC perspective, concluding that God could stop reproduction is logical, haven't I? But logic is not evidence. And the evidence indicates that organisms reproduce, and reproduce quite fast most of the time. You can dismiss that evidence, but what you are then doing is just making stuff up. I've had some very logical theories in my short career as a scientist. When they were not backed by the evidence, I dismissed them. Logic is not 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.

It would be just as logical to postulate that God would create something, let it run on it's own and just watch the view. We tend to try that as humans, we rather prefer it if we can. Or God could have made the earth as a self-contained, perpetual process, where he only funs around with humans. Neither of the two options is logically preferable to the other from any viewpoint. The non-interfering one, at leat in nature, would seem the more logical of the two, at least from a human POV. Because we tend to think of something we need to tinker around with constantly for it to work as flawed, don't we. If I write code and have to bugfix all the while, nobody is going to give me much credit, including me. But perhaps God is more like a model-train builder, never finished, always building a new station over here, relaying the rails over there, creating a new mountain in the middle because he got bored with the town. Could be. But what happened with the fall in that case, that it turned this "model-building" galore into a self-running scheme. Does that sound logical to you?

 

[consol]

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?

Gods do not exists outside of peoples minds, so you are talking about religion, creationism is a religion,
I was talking about what creationists believe, and how foolish I thought it was,
so when we talk about creationism, we talk about religion.

So logic has no place in religion, that's why they call it a belief, a faith,
because it only exists in the mind of the believer,
they have been told about it, or read it, and they believe it,
so their imaginations then take over and build it to be how they want it to be, to suit themselves,
for them religion is wonderful, in fact it's everything they could ever imagine it to be.

 

[Split Rock]

. But perhaps God is more like a model-train builder, never finished, always building a new station over here, relaying the rails over there, creating a new mountain in the middle because he got bored with the town. Could be. But what happened with the fall in that case, that it turned this "model-building" galore into a self-running scheme. Does that sound logical to you?

The problem with this is that many creationists here has stressed that Genesis says God stopped creating at the end of Creation Week. Therefore, the Creation is complete and God would not continue creating, because His Word says He was finished.

 

[razzelflabben]

I really shouldn't do this, but okay, I'll go over your post.


It isn't problematic for me. Many religions, among them different Christian denominations, proclaim God as inherently unknowable. But when you say that God is the same as you humans, unless otherwise specified, you need to say where this is specified and in what way. Because just saying that God behaves like a human except when he doesn't, includes everything and therefore nothing.

was this what offended you? Because I said that God and man are similar? Look, as I already stated in this case, the difference is in what authority God has verses man's authority. Like an employer vs. and employee, or a mother vs. a father. Both will behave similarly, but that doesn't mean they are identical. How is that offensive? both a mother and father care for the child, love the child, instruct the child, and yet both are different. Just because man was created in God's image doesn't mean they do everything exactly the same, however, it does mean that there are some basic similarities that we cannot ignore. But we are off topic again. More ad homs I imagine.

How is it a problem in the application. How is creation "applied"?

not sure what you are having a problem with here. The paragraph shows how a God who sets things in motion is totally in character to also keep his hand in the mix. Just as someone starting a family or a career would do, they would start the ball rolling and allow certain things to be out of their control all the while remaining in the process, working within the boundries that they cannot control. The point is that it is in character for a being (God or man, since they are similar) to create something, and let it run, all the while manipulating certain parts, how do you think we became so advanced technologically?

It is? How? What is the difference between "earth and it's ecosystems" as the creation and as the application.

Hum, again I am stumped by your problem here. No wonder you didn't want to respond...let me see if I can clear this up for you. Let's say that I invented running water and a bathtub for that water source. Now all of a sudden you can take a bath indoors. Is that a good thing? Of course it is, but what if someone used it to drown someone else. Is the problem in the creation, or in the application of the created thing?

Let's see, another example, I create a new recipe, it's the most delicious choc. cake you have ever eaten. I make the cake and take it to your house for you to eat and enjoy. But after the cake arrives at your house, someone sneaks in and places poison in it. So when you eat the cake, instead of it giving you enjoyment, it gives you sickness. Was the fault in my creation or the use of that creation?

Likewise, according to Gen. God created a perfect world, but sin messed it up. Sin came along and put poison in the perfect cake that had been made and brought for you to enjoy. Was the fault in the created world or in the application of that world? Pretty much so everything in this world has potential of being used for evil, no matter what good it was created for.

Off-topic tangent. Whether or not Man would have "fallen" is irrelevant to the subject at hand. If man would not have "fallen", limited space + reproduction - death = no room would apply as well.

admittedly and one you don't need to address unless you want to tackle it in an apologetics thread. But as you bring it back around to the topic in the OP. What you are missing is the logic of your statement. limited space + reproduction - death + command to stop reproducing = plenty of room. Your problem is that either way you look at it, there is no problem for creation, at least as logic goes. So you have one of two logical choices.
1. limited space + reproduction + command to stop reproducing - death = creation or
2. limited space + reproduction + fall of man bringing death into the world = creation.

Either way you want to look at it, logic dictates there is not problem here for creation. Which though this is supposedly an ad hom argument, is exactly what the OP is talking about.

What do you mean when you say "the evidence show it be no problem"? The evidence shows that animals reproduce and die, creating a balance between life and death. If you take out death (without evidence for that) you are still left with reproduction. Sure, you can drift even further away from the evidence. As I said before, when you've discarded a lot of it already, a bit more ain't gonna hurt.

wow, you get upset over the strangest things, take that as an insult if you want, it wasn't intended as such, it was intended to say to you, you get upset over the dumbest things.

The evidence shows that A. reproduction and death are part of life. It also shows that B. reproduction without death equals a need to stop reproducing. But what does the logic (remember here we are limiting our discussion to logic and not personal preferences) say from a creation stand. That being the bible and not individual interpretations thereof. It says, 1. the fall of man brought with it death, and 2. if man had not fallen, God had the authority to command life to stop procreating.

It seems to me that what you are missing here is this idea of how long ago the text was written. In other words, the pureness of the text and what it understands is so incredible from the standpoint of what we know in science that it is amazing on that level alone. In other words, thousands of years ago, if this text is fiction and fiction alone, the people knew enough to build into the story the arguments that you are trying to levy against it. That's some pretty cool stuff.

Thanks for the insult. I do think about what I am saying, thank you very much. I am putting time and effort in these posts, but I'll happily stop that if that is not appreciated.

oh, so this is the insult you are referring to. Your post show that you don't really think about what you are saying, but I best not point that out to you. Sorry, I'm bad. I won't point out your mistakes again, I hope I can remember.

No, they are at best dismissals of the logic, not of the evidence. That's the point, isn't it. I have already stated that from a YEC perspective, concluding that God could stop reproduction is logical, haven't I? But logic is not evidence. And the evidence indicates that organisms reproduce, and reproduce quite fast most of the time. You can dismiss that evidence, but what you are then doing is just making stuff up. I've had some very logical theories in my short career as a scientist. When they were not backed by the evidence, I dismissed them. Logic is not evidence.

No, logic is not evidence, however, logic is based on evidence. That is the flaw in your claims here.

It would be just as logical to postulate that God would create something, let it run on it's own and just watch the view.

except that isn't what we see humans doing and as discussed already, man was created in God's image. Therefore you are removing evidence that we do have, so that you can create a new conclusion. The only logical conclusions that can be made are those that are based out of evidence. No matter whether we agree or disagree. For example, we cannot draw any conclusions on our stories alone, there has to be some form of evidence to look at. In the case of the OP. The evidence has to do with authority. In the case of your argument here, it has to do with the nature of things that are created or done.

We tend to try that as humans, we rather prefer it if we can. Or God could have made the earth as a self-contained, perpetual process, where he only funs around with humans. Neither of the two options is logically preferable to the other from any viewpoint.

again ad hom arguments from you. For example the computer you are sitting at right now would not be the same computer if man had created a computer then walked away and let it do it's thing. Sorry, the evidence shows that man is a hands on kind of being and as such, the logical conclusion is that God is too. Now that is if you believe that God exists and is the pattern for which man is created from. But that is a totally different story all together. Our current discussion is about a God who is similar to man and what that would look like in a created universe. The logical conclusion and the only viable conclusion is that that creator God would watch it work, but also be involved in it's function

The non-interfering one, at leat in nature, would seem the more logical of the two, at least from a human POV.

give even one example of what evidence you use to draw this conclusion.

Because we tend to think of something we need to tinker around with constantly for it to work as flawed, don't we.

Not everything we change is flawed to begin with. Look at your computer, it doesn't need to be flawed to improve on it.

If I write code and have to bugfix all the while, nobody is going to give me much credit, including me. But perhaps God is more like a model-train builder, never finished, always building a new station over here, relaying the rails over there, creating a new mountain in the middle because he got bored with the town. Could be. But what happened with the fall in that case, that it turned this "model-building" galore into a self-running scheme. Does that sound logical to you?

Wow, and you accuse me of tangents and ad homs. What the heck do you think this whole paragraph is?

But quickly since you don't seem to want to actually talk about the OP. Changing something or working within it's framework doesn't have to be about something being wrong or broken. Sometimes it's just change and sometimes it's about making it safer from misuse. Take your computer, if I add parental protections is it because the original computer was flawed or broken? What was its flaw, it's problem? Was the problem not with the application of the original creation?

 

[razzelflabben]

Gods do not exists outside of peoples minds, so you are talking about religion, creationism is a religion,
I was talking about what creationists believe, and how foolish I thought it was,
so when we talk about creationism, we talk about religion.

again, this is off topic, notice Tom that I admit that right up front. But that being said, you are missing two big points in such a narrow view of religion, well actually three glaring points.
1. If God does exist, it is inside and outside peoples minds. A blanket statement like this is based on prejudice not on evidence and as such has no merit
2. creation is a theory about how life came to it's current state. It is true that it is often wrapped up in religious beliefs, but it is no more a religion than evolution is a religion.
3. Religion for most people is a way of life, therefore religion is not at all about a God who exists inside, outside, upside down in peoples minds, but rather it is a physical manifestation of what people believe. Therefore as tangible as emotions, or other actions of man.

Your above limits your understanding to God but calls it religion. [/quote]

So logic has no place in religion, that's why they call it a belief, a faith,
because it only exists in the mind of the believer,
they have been told about it, or read it, and they believe it,
so their imaginations then take over and build it to be how they want it to be, to suit themselves,
for them religion is wonderful, in fact it's everything they could ever imagine it to be.[/quote]Wow, if only this was in the apologetics thread.

Look at it this way, at least maybe that will keep us on topic for the moment. We aren't discussing religion, to do so is a tangent, an ad hom. We are discussing a specific belief or idea, or opinion, or theory and how the evidence in our world would show the logical conclusions of that belief/idea/opinion/theory. As such, there is no problem

 

[razzelflabben]

The problem with this is that many creationists here has stressed that Genesis says God stopped creating at the end of Creation Week. Therefore, the Creation is complete and God would not continue creating, because His Word says He was finished.

controling or manipulating what was already created isn't the same thing as creating it again or additionally.

 

[Tomk80]

was this what offended you? Because I said that God and man are similar? Look, as I already stated in this case, the difference is in what authority God has verses man's authority. Like an employer vs. and employee, or a mother vs. a father. Both will behave similarly, but that doesn't mean they are identical. How is that offensive? both a mother and father care for the child, love the child, instruct the child, and yet both are different. Just because man was created in God's image doesn't mean they do everything exactly the same, however, it does mean that there are some basic similarities that we cannot ignore. But we are off topic again. More ad homs I imagine.

Try again. This time, actually respond to what I wrote, okay?

not sure what you are having a problem with here. The paragraph shows how a God who sets things in motion is totally in character to also keep his hand in the mix. Just as someone starting a family or a career would do, they would start the ball rolling and allow certain things to be out of their control all the while remaining in the process, working within the boundries that they cannot control. The point is that it is in character for a being (God or man, since they are similar) to create something, and let it run, all the while manipulating certain parts, how do you think we became so advanced technologically?

We became technologically advanced by improving on old ideas. Wy would an omniscient God need to do that. Or do you hold that God is not omniscient. By the way, in that whole paragraph, you did not actually answer my question.

Hum, again I am stumped by your problem here. No wonder you didn't want to respond...

There you go again. I did not want to respond because I saw the first signs of rudeness from you. I have discussed issues with you before, Razzel, and I know how those discussion generally devolve. As it is doing here. I will respond to this post once more. If you cannot respond in a decent way, I see no reason to continue discussing with you. Clear? Good.

let me see if I can clear this up for you. Let's say that I invented running water and a bathtub for that water source. Now all of a sudden you can take a bath indoors. Is that a good thing? Of course it is, but what if someone used it to drown someone else. Is the problem in the creation, or in the application of the created thing?

Let's see, another example, I create a new recipe, it's the most delicious choc. cake you have ever eaten. I make the cake and take it to your house for you to eat and enjoy. But after the cake arrives at your house, someone sneaks in and places poison in it. So when you eat the cake, instead of it giving you enjoyment, it gives you sickness. Was the fault in my creation or the use of that creation?

Likewise, according to Gen. God created a perfect world, but sin messed it up. Sin came along and put poison in the perfect cake that had been made and brought for you to enjoy. Was the fault in the created world or in the application of that world? Pretty much so everything in this world has potential of being used for evil, no matter what good it was created for.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is that reproduction + finite world - death = no room. Can we keep on topic?

admittedly and one you don't need to address unless you want to tackle it in an apologetics thread. But as you bring it back around to the topic in the OP. What you are missing is the logic of your statement. limited space + reproduction - death + command to stop reproducing = plenty of room. Your problem is that either way you look at it, there is no problem for creation, at least as logic goes. So you have one of two logical choices.

I have never said that the reasoning was not logical. How many times do I have to say this Razzel, before it gets through to you?

1. limited space + reproduction + command to stop reproducing - death = creation or
2. limited space + reproduction + fall of man bringing death into the world = creation.

Either way you want to look at it, logic dictates there is not problem here for creation. Which though this is supposedly an ad hom argument, is exactly what the OP is talking about.

Where did I state that the problem was one of logic Razzel? Can you start addressing my actual argument? Please?

wow, you get upset over the strangest things, take that as an insult if you want, it wasn't intended as such, it was intended to say to you, you get upset over the dumbest things.

And this isn't an insult either, I suppose. As I said before in this post, if your attitude does not improve in your next post, this discussion is over. Second time I've said it now.

The evidence shows that A. reproduction and death are part of life. It also shows that B. reproduction without death equals a need to stop reproducing. But what does the logic (remember here we are limiting our discussion to logic and not personal preferences) say from a creation stand. That being the bible and not individual interpretations thereof. It says, 1. the fall of man brought with it death, and 2. if man had not fallen, God had the authority to command life to stop procreating.

Sure. The problem is that this is a nice statement, but not one with evidence behind it. How many posts do I have to make saying: "the YEC position that God could have ordered reproduction to stop is a logical one, but that the problem is that there is no evidence for it whatsoever" before you stop pretending I am arguing that the logic is flawed? How many times Razzel?

It seems to me that what you are missing here is this idea of how long ago the text was written. In other words, the pureness of the text and what it understands is so incredible from the standpoint of what we know in science that it is amazing on that level alone. In other words, thousands of years ago, if this text is fiction and fiction alone, the people knew enough to build into the story the arguments that you are trying to levy against it. That's some pretty cool stuff.

Again an off-topic part. I am tempted to respond, really, but I won't.

oh, so this is the insult you are referring to. Your post show that you don't really think about what you are saying, but I best not point that out to you. Sorry, I'm bad. I won't point out your mistakes again, I hope I can remember.

Third time in a single post. I never said the discussion was what irked me Razzel. You can point out my "mistakes" (well, in theory you could, though so far all you seem to be doing is pointing out strawmen of my argument), but you can do so without implying that I am not thinking through my posts or calling me dumb, don't you think?

No, logic is not evidence, however, logic is based on evidence. That is the flaw in your claims here.

No, logic is not necessarily based on evidence. Logical reasoning can proceed very well without it. Philosphers do it all the time, so do theologians. This is exactly the case here. The statement that a God who is all powerfull and who can order organisms to procreate can also order them to stop procreating is logical. It is not a logical statement based on evidence, however.

except that isn't what we see humans doing and as discussed already, man was created in God's image. Therefore you are removing evidence that we do have, so that you can create a new conclusion. The only logical conclusions that can be made are those that are based out of evidence. No matter whether we agree or disagree. For example, we cannot draw any conclusions on our stories alone, there has to be some form of evidence to look at. In the case of the OP. The evidence has to do with authority. In the case of your argument here, it has to do with the nature of things that are created or done.

But humans are trying to automate as many processes as possible. Sure, we have to watch those automated processes, but only because we are not good enough designers. Many processes that we create, we try to make as independent as we can. That is the evidence.

again ad hom arguments from you.

That was not an ad-hom argument. I never related the statement to you Razzel. If you want to accuse me of ad-homming, at least pick statements where I actually do so.

For example the computer you are sitting at right now would not be the same computer if man had created a computer then walked away and let it do it's thing. Sorry, the evidence shows that man is a hands on kind of being and as such, the logical conclusion is that God is too. Now that is if you believe that God exists and is the pattern for which man is created from. But that is a totally different story all together. Our current discussion is about a God who is similar to man and what that would look like in a created universe. The logical conclusion and the only viable conclusion is that that creator God would watch it work, but also be involved in it's function give even one example of what evidence you use to draw this conclusion. Not everything we change is flawed to begin with. Look at your computer, it doesn't need to be flawed to improve on it.

In our computers, everything we do not directly want to do is automated nowadays. That is the story of human civilization. For every thing that we do not want to do, we create things that do them by themselves. The reason we need to be behind a computer is because we want to use it as a user interface between us and whatever functions it has. If I wanted the computer to portray a maintenance-free aquarium, I could presumably write a code for that and leave it standing in my room in a pretty spot, if possible for all my life, if not eternity. If that were my goal of using it, it would be pretty bad if I had to sit behind it all day, wouldn't it?

Wow, and you accuse me of tangents and ad homs. What the heck do you think this whole paragraph is?

An analogy. Like you used in your post. Like you use in all your posts. What else would it be Razzel? An analogy for the world as an automated process or the world as a thing God would constantly try to meddle in. Can you now actually respond to that?

But quickly since you don't seem to want to actually talk about the OP.

I am talking about the OP, Razzel.

Changing something or working within it's framework doesn't have to be about something being wrong or broken. Sometimes it's just change and sometimes it's about making it safer from misuse. Take your computer, if I add parental protections is it because the original computer was flawed or broken? What was its flaw, it's problem? Was the problem not with the application of the original creation?

The OP makes the valid point that the absence of God would necessitate God to again take action on his creation at some point. As I have said, and I'll say it again, from some creationist perspectives it can be logical to say that he would do that. As I have also said, I think the OP's argument is not very strong, exactly for that reason. However, as I have also said, I think that it has some merit because of two reasons. (1) that this argument ignores the observable evidence that we have even further. (2) The second reason being that it would seem more logical to create as much of the processes in creation as an automated, running process instead of a process that needs to be constantly interfered with.

I make the following observations regarding your posts so far.
A) You seem to be hung up on the idea that I think the "creationist" position as I have described it above is not logical. Nowhere have I said such a thing, I have explicitly stated that it is a logical position. I have also explicitly stated that the argument as presented by consol is not a very strong argument.

B) Regarding my argument (1) above, I note that you have so far brought nothing to the table against this argument. I see no reason to abandon it for exactly that reason.

(C) Regarding my argument (2) above, everytime you have asserted that humans do not want to use automated processes, you have pointed to:
(i) processes where humans use machines to do something for them (computers); I have noted in this post and a previous post, that humans do indeed try to automate any and all functions that are peripheral to the thing they want to achieve. If humans are like God, one would think that God works the same way.
(ii) processes where an event cannot be foreseen in all cases (parental control in case of mass-produced computers, or raising kids); one would think that this does not apply to God since he is presumably omniscient.
(iii) I noted another possibility, God as a devine hobbyist, who likes to tinker just for the tinkering. So far, you have not responded to that argument, but I would presume it is not really in line with the Christian idea of God.
(iv) I noted that all these problems get to the same central weakness. If God needed to be actively involved when the creation was "perfect", how come it can run on it's own after the Fall? This seems to be to be rather odd. You have not responded to that yet either.

 

[razzelflabben]

The basic problem I find with you is that when we are on the same thread, you start off reasonably enough, you show great character, wisdom, logic, etc. but before long, you turn, getting upset at anything said, even comments that were intended as compliments you take as an insult. Comments that agree with you, you also take as insult and offensive. It gets so bad that I have no idea what you will become offended by and what you will not. All the time, you blame me. Now I can guess at why this is, but that would be what it is, a guess. That pattern usually seems to start when your ideas are actually challenged. Take what you will from that, it's an observation. To that end, all I know to do is ignore posts that show this turn of character and hope to see the first Tom again.

Try again. snip for space.

We became technologically advanced by improving on old ideas. Wy would an omniscient God need to do that. Or do you hold that God is not omniscient. By the way, in that whole paragraph, you did not actually answer my question.

Not all our advances are to improve on ideas. Some are, for sure...equate that to adaptation if you want, though that would be outside my discussion topic. Some advancements are to control illegal or inappropriate use...look at it this way, the bible says that what God create was good and very good. now many take that to mean perfect, of which I would not necessarily agree, but we want to look at the logic of the argument not the individual agreements or disagreements. So God creates a perfect world. But sin comes into the world. Suddenly, the world that was perfect is now being used wrong. Remember our discussion of the computer and inappropriate uses, or the bathtub with running water being used for murder rather than baths. So we take something that was created (in this case) good or perfect, and we manipulate the misuse, creating advancements. It isn't the creation that is flawed, but the use of that creation. This is what the bible says about the evils in this world.

snip

Irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is that reproduction + finite world - death = no room. Can we keep on topic?

I don't understand your objection. I laid out for you the possibles and applied logic through evidence to limit the possibles and your only response is reproduction + finite world - death = no room. What we do with this is look to see if the evidence provides any other possibles. And, yes it does. 1. reproduction + finite world - death = no room. 2. reproduction+finite world-death+command=no problem and 3. reproduction+finite world+sin(death)=no problem. So we look at these three with respect to the evidence at hand. Of which we see two things, evidence that there is evil in this world and evidence that anyone with the authority to command an action equally has the authority to command the opposite action. Thus the evidence shows that only 2 and 3 are possible and of those two, only 3 happened. The first option has no evidence to support it. Well, I take that back, it has incomplete evidence. In other words, it's the same basic evidence we use in all three, but stops there instead of collecting all possible evidence available.

snip

Sure. The problem is that this is a nice statement, but not one with evidence behind it. How many posts do I have to make saying: "the YEC position that God could have ordered reproduction to stop is a logical one, but that the problem is that there is no evidence for it whatsoever" before you stop pretending I am arguing that the logic is flawed? How many times Razzel?

I have been addressing this, but if I ask you when you will accept that, then I will be told I am insulting you again. So I best not say anything like you just said to me.

What is the evidence? The evidence is 1. reproduction + finite world - death = problem, but the evidence is also, someone with the authority to command an action is equally able to command the opposite action. We also have evidence that reproduction +finite world +death = no problem. IOW's we can't just take a small bit of evidence and claim to know truth, we have to look at all the available evidence at hand on the topic and evaluate it accordingly.

snip

You can point out my "mistakes" (well, in theory you could, though so far all you seem to be doing is pointing out strawmen of my argument), but you can do so without implying that I am not thinking through my posts or calling me dumb, don't you think?

Well, this is an interesting paragraph, and admission of strawmen arguments, and twisting what I said to something not stated. IOW's I didn't call you dumb, not once, all I said is that you don't seem to think through your own arguments which is admitted to here by you when you admit to strawmen arguments. Your accusations of my insults is confusing me and if I found some kind of consistency I would know how to not insult you. Can you show me that consistency so that we can continue to talk? You are an interesting person to talk with and show great promise. But your inconsistency in what is insulting seems to be problematic and I would happily correct if I only understood what I was doing wrong.

No, logic is not necessarily based on evidence. Logical reasoning can proceed very well without it. Philosphers do it all the time, so do theologians. This is exactly the case here. The statement that a God who is all powerfull and who can order organisms to procreate can also order them to stop procreating is logical. It is not a logical statement based on evidence, however.

So your claim is that there is no evidence that someone with the authority to command one thing doesn't also have the authority to command the opposite. Interesting, I think I would have to disagree with you on that. Take my role as parent. I have the authority to tell my kids to do all kinds of things, like cleaning their room. But the evidence shows that I equally have the authority to stop that behavior. Isn't evidence observations of our empirical world? Isn't the observation of authority empirical in nature? That being testable?

But humans are trying to automate as many processes as possible. Sure, we have to watch those automated processes, but only because we are not good enough designers. Many processes that we create, we try to make as independent as we can. That is the evidence.

like parental controls on the TV or computer? Or maybe the speed in which information travels? Maybe it is just poor design that led us to faster cars, not our desire for faster cars? Or microwave ovens were created out of need for fast food, not our desire for faster food? And washing machines came about because we needed cleaner clothes, not because we wanted more time? there is a story about the dish washer and it's inventor and the story says that the idea came from a desire for more time, not out of a need for anything. But all these things, are evidences of what? Change and manipulation due to poor design and need??? Sorry, that is an illogical way to look at the evidence. The evidence shows us that man manipulates creations all the time, not out of poor design but out of wants and desires.

Therefore, the question to ask would be what was God's purpose for the creation. It is in answering this question that we can delve into the argument that it was a flawed creation or that it lacked foresight. But before we can even look into either of those arguments you need to know what the purpose of the creation was in the first place. Only then can the evidence show us anything at all. You see, we need to look at all the evidences, not just the ones that suit out agendas.

snip

In our computers, everything we do not directly want to do is automated nowadays. That is the story of human civilization. For every thing that we do not want to do, we create things that do them by themselves. The reason we need to be behind a computer is because we want to use it as a user interface between us and whatever functions it has. If I wanted the computer to portray a maintenance-free aquarium, I could presumably write a code for that and leave it standing in my room in a pretty spot, if possible for all my life, if not eternity. If that were my goal of using it, it would be pretty bad if I had to sit behind it all day, wouldn't it?

we are not talking about a computer code, we are talking about the changes in the computer over the years. Take the computer I am currently sitting at, when I update it, will it be because I need more computer to type these words to you? Or will it be because there is some new computer out there that is faster and cooler? Our wants drive creation more than our needs do. Therefore if we are to be objective and look at all the evidence, we need to find out what God's purpose for creation was. Without this information, your argument is nothing but one in a string of possibles.

An analogy. Like you used in your post. Like you use in all your posts. What else would it be Razzel? An analogy for the world as an automated process or the world as a thing God would constantly try to meddle in. Can you now actually respond to that?

I'm lost, what do you wish me to respond to that I haven't already done? From a biblical point of view, God does both, let's His creation move and live as well as manipulating it. This is evidenced in our world as well. Man often creates something and then manipulates it according to all kinds of situations, from malfunction to wants and everything in between. The evidence shows that man (who we already stated was created in God's image, therefore like God but not identical to, that is, similar but different just as you and I are similar but different)manipulates his creations as well as letting them function. There is no conflict in the evidence here. Which is what I don't understand about any of this discussion. You all (note here I am not specifying you, nor am I isolating you out) act like this is some wonderful end all creation and God arguments once and for all argument when all it really is is an exercise in applying evidence and logic to the ideas of creation and God and finding no conflict.

snip

The OP makes the valid point that the absence of God would necessitate God to again take action on his creation at some point. As I have said, and I'll say it again, from some creationist perspectives it can be logical to say that he would do that. As I have also said, I think the OP's argument is not very strong, exactly for that reason. However, as I have also said, I think that it has some merit because of two reasons. (1) that this argument ignores the observable evidence that we have even further.

which evidence are you referring to here?

(2) The second reason being that it would seem more logical to create as much of the processes in creation as an automated, running process instead of a process that needs to be constantly interfered with.

this is the one I am taking objections to. Logic states that I must look at all the available evidence before determining what is logical. As such, the only logical possibility is one in which the creator would both let the creation run and manipulate the creation based on intent and desire. Like the first part of this discussion, that of authority to command, when looking at all the evidence, there is only one possible conclusion based on a logical process and in this discussion, the only possible, logical conclusion is that God would be expected to allow creation to function and at the same time, manipulate that creation at times.

 

[razzelflabben]

part two

I make the following observations regarding your posts so far.
A) You seem to be hung up on the idea that I think the "creationist" position as I have described it above is not logical. Nowhere have I said such a thing, I have explicitly stated that it is a logical position. I have also explicitly stated that the argument as presented by consol is not a very strong argument.

what makes you think this is my stand?

B) Regarding my argument (1) above, I note that you have so far brought nothing to the table against this argument. I see no reason to abandon it for exactly that reason.

If I say, read it again, would that be insulting? I have taken great lengths to show you evidence that says you are wrong. But your only response is that I don't bring evidence or that I don't understand your argument. Which is a contradiction in and of itself. So which is it, I didn't bring evidence or I don't understand your position?

(C) Regarding my argument (2) above, everytime you have asserted that humans do not want to use automated processes,

I have never asserted that humans do not want to use automated processes, in fact, one of the evidences I presented against your argument is that our desires drive creation.

you have pointed to:
(i) processes where humans use machines to do something for them (computers); I have noted in this post and a previous post, that humans do indeed try to automate any and all functions that are peripheral to the thing they want to achieve. If humans are like God, one would think that God works the same way.

Now I am really confused, I thought we were talking about whether or not God manipulates His creation, not whether or not He tries to make it function a certain way. No contest, as long as I know what your point is. God absolutely has a purpose in mind when He created the universe. I can't believe all your argument was over this. Without doubt, the bible tells us that God had a purpose in mind when He created. You won that one without any effort, in fact, I have stated that many times over already. What is the disagreement?

(ii) processes where an event cannot be foreseen in all cases (parental control in case of mass-produced computers, or raising kids); one would think that this does not apply to God since he is presumably omniscient.

So now we change your argument again. It is hard to keep track. Opps was that an insult? Sorry. If we are to take the bible as the default here, then the parental controls are the perfect example. According to the bible, sin, or evil came into a world that did not have evil before. Like our computer, when it was just a word processor, it was not evil, but the www brought with it evil. So how do we address that evil? By creating new controls. If the created world was without evil, (which is where the idea of no death comes from) there would have been no need for manipulation. But with evil came problems, like our computers, the evil brought worms, porn, etc. Controls were necessary to limit the dangers of the evil that came. Thus our evidence shows that in a logical path to understanding, we would expect God to both allow creation to move and manipulate it both.

(iii) I noted another possibility, God as a devine hobbyist, who likes to tinker just for the tinkering. So far, you have not responded to that argument, but I would presume it is not really in line with the Christian idea of God.

I don't know how you want me to respond. I don't see anything that would eliminate this from the possibles until or unless we look at all the evidence and stop picking and choosing which we want to look at. For example, the evidence shows that man can and often is a tinkerer. So the only way we could eliminate this from the list of possibles is to 1. find something in God's character that would eliminate this or 2. understand God's intent or purpose in the creation.

(iv) I noted that all these problems get to the same central weakness. If God needed to be actively involved when the creation was "perfect", how come it can run on it's own after the Fall? This seems to be to be rather odd. You have not responded to that yet either.

I have responded many times over, opps was that an insult too? Sorry, I don't appreciate being told I didn't do something I did several time already.

Let's summarize (iv)I noted that all these problems get to the same central weakness. If God needed to be actively involved when the creation was "perfect", [/quote] goes back to purpose of creation again. For example, I don't expect the computer sitting on my desk to do the laundry for me. why? Because it is not the purpose of the creation to do the laundry.

how come it can run on it's own after the Fall?

I don't know how to answer this at all, it seems that you are saying that God is not currently intervening and yet the christian belief in general is that He does and there is some evidence that He does, though I wouldn't expect anyone who is bent on not seeing God to accept the evidence. IOW's what is this part of the argument but another ad hom?

This seems to be to be rather odd. You have not responded to that yet either.

again, I have responded so many times it makes my head hurt and still you accuse me otherwise, isn't that an insult? or just a false accusation? I'm not sure how I should be offended, I take things like this and brush them off instead of using them to avoid actual discussion.

 

[Tomk80]

Razzel, sorry for the delay in responding. Real life caught up with me big time. This may result in me getting a new job or even a PhD-position, which is good, but also means a lot less time at this point. I may not check in for the next few weeks either, but I'll try to remember getting back to you if/when I can.

regards,

 

[razzelflabben]

Razzel, sorry for the delay in responding. Real life caught up with me big time. This may result in me getting a new job or even a PhD-position, which is good, but also means a lot less time at this point. I may not check in for the next few weeks either, but I'll try to remember getting back to you if/when I can.

regards,

congrats, things around here could change pretty quickly as well. Make the most of the changes, use them well.

Razz...