No, there is evidence that Yahweh was worshipped long before that, at least as far back as 2000 BC. There is textual evidence that the story of Abraham comes from that time period. The type of covenant God made with Abraham fits the Hittite Suzerainty Treaty. Someone living in 1200-1000 BC could not have known about that type of treaty. Also, sociological studies have shown that almost all ancient religions recognize one supreme God over all the other gods and if traced back in time there is evidence that that God is usually the oldest one that they recognize. This is evidence that originally humans were monotheistic and that other gods were added later.
No, there really isn't evidence of that. Regardless, Yahweh started off as a junior god in the Canaanite Pantheon under the supreme god El.
Even if you could back up the claim that people worshipped him as early as 2,000BC (which no historian I'm aware of believes to be the case), you still have to explain the fact that Yahweh was not even close to the god you think he is today. He was not originally regarded as a creator god, nor was he considered the supreme (or only) god.
No, human created gods do not have the high moral standards of the Christian God. For example, if He had been manmade He would have allowed humans to have sex with whomever they wanted rather than restricting it to heterosexual married couples. And He would have allowed divorce laws to be much more relaxed. And He would allow you to hate your enemies and tell lies when they help you and etc. Such nearly unreachable moral standards would unlikely to have been created by humans.
I don't see why you consider those high moral standards. The only reason you can make a case for why that's superior moral behavior is because Yahweh says so. It's rooted within your religion.
If someone has sex with another consenting adult, who is harmed? Likewise, what's immoral about divorce? There are a number of marriages I've been aware of which should end in divorce, namely ones where one spouse is being physically abused by the other. Why is it moral to stay in a marriage when you're getting the crap beaten out of you on a daily basis by your spouse?
Or, in a less dramatic fashion, say two people are married for 15 years without children, they drift apart and find they no longer love each other. What's the moral imperative to stay together? It benefits neither and harms both to stay in a loveless relationship.
Your god doesn't have high moral standards. He has commandments, some of which are moral, some of which are not.
Art experts know that artists incorporate certain characteristics of themselves into their artwork. That is how they are able to determine whether a piece of art was actually created by the artist or whether it is a fake. And this is also often true of non art creations.
And a master forger makes themselves aware of those characteristics and incorporates them into the forged work. What's your point?
Fraid so, especially if it is so obvious that is what they were functionally designed to do in cases of eyes, ears, hands, etc.
Labelling it as "obvious" doesn't make it so. Your logic is fallacious, just because something looks designed doesn't mean it is. It's an argument from ignorance. You haven't demonstrated actual design.
The obviousness of the finely tuned function of the eyes, ears, teeth, and etc plainly point to purpose.
Yeah, "finely tuned", which is why we need glasses, hearing aids and dentures. Good job for your "master designer", he was clearly having a bad day at work when he finely tuned those organs. It took us humans to make up for the mistakes inherent in the "design".
If they were the finely tuned product of a perfect creator, then they should work perfectly. Instead we see the results one would expect if they were naturally occurring (or the results one would expect from an office temp with a bad attitude). They are imperfect, and especially in regards to the eyes and teeth, deeply flawed designs.
Cancers do not have that obviousness of a finely tuned function or irreducible complexity. Though they very well may have a purpose that is hidden from us at present.
So, you give credit to god for things that are beneficial, and you attempt to brush cancer under the rug. Typical.
You're avoiding the point though, if god created us as finely tuned beings, then he must have created cancer as well. Cancer cells work very effectively at what they do, although they are harmful to us. Since they function, and function well it's clear they must have also been designed, and therefore have a purpose.
Please, explain the purpose behind childhood leukemia.
We do see a function among animals for such things, they help keep animal populations from overtaking their resources and after they die they help return nutrients back to the environment so that life can go on.
Yes, but if this was a designed world (or universe) then it could have been created in a way where resources and nutrients aren't really needed. There's no imperative reason why we have to eat, or why we need nutrients. That's just how our bodies function. If you had the ability to create life from nothing, it would make far more sense to have us operate via a much stronger version of photosynthesis, or even better have some kind of internal power generator.
It makes no sense both from an engineering and a moral standpoint to create creatures constantly hunting and killing each other. That's the virtual equivalent of a celestial dog fighting ring.
The intricately designed immune systems to fight infections and even cancers show a purpose also.
Not really, especially when you consider that your god would also be responsible for creating cancer and infectious diseases. What kind of sadist would create a bunch of things that can kill us in horrible and painful ways, then provide us with a self defense system which is capable of fighting
some of those things off, and even then, not always.
Is that moral behaviour to you? It makes sense if these things are naturally occurring, but it is positively horrendous if things were made this way on purpose.
Please provide an empirical example of a impersonal source for purpose, outside of biological systems of course, since that is what we are arguing.
Why do you keep asking me that? I've already stated it makes no sense for an impersonal thing to provide purpose.
I have also already stated that you're fallaciously equivocating functionality with intentional purpose. Just because something works a certain way does not mean it was purposefully designed by a conscious being. Nature can and does create working things all the time, however it would be incorrect to ascribe purpose to those things.
Yes, and you are personal being. This confirms my point that purposes only come from personal beings.
Again, I agree purpose only comes from conscious beings. Your problem (as I said above) is you're ascribing purpose to everything, when you have no justification to do so.
