Human Evolution

[Estrid]

They are a Deist.

However millions of Bible affirming and believing Christians have no problem accepting the science of evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

It's mostly a matter of education. yec / evolution
deniers seldom have much education. Those that do.
have to contend with cognitive dissonance or sink into
the Vice of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, one of those speculations was that a creator with a mind might possibly have initiated the universe. If you say I have no reason to speculate that a creator with a mind did it, fine, I won't speculate that a creator with a mind could have possibly done it.

That's it? Discussion over?

You are the one saying you have no reason to go with that one. I say you SHOULD have reason, as the very fact you exist implies cause, and it is plain sense that implies first cause. But, oh well.

To me it makes more sense that first cause should exist, than that I should exist. But here I am, so to me it makes perfect sense that first cause is, because I am an obvious effect of causation.

All other speculations, frankly, look silly. But, oh well.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Please?

No such luck. But ok, I'll try to back off. Just for you. Well, ok, because I don't seem to be getting anywhere, too. Enjoy!

 

[doubtingmerle]

the very fact you exist implies cause, and it is plain sense that implies first cause. But, oh well.

To me it makes more sense that first cause should exist, than that I should exist. But here I am, so to me it makes perfect sense that first cause is, because I am an obvious effect of causation.

And is this first cause God? Or is it Hod? Or is it Nod? (See my previous post-- Human Evolution )

 

[AV1611VET]

And is this first cause God?

Yes.

And if you disagree, then your "first cause" bologna can take a hike.

Science gives reality a bad name.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes.

And if you disagree, then your "first cause" bologna can take a hike.

Science gives reality a bad name.

And what evidence do you have that the first cause was God, and not Hod or Nod?

 

[Mark Quayle]

And is this first cause God? Or is it Hod? Or is it Nod? (See my previous post-- Human Evolution )

As it works out, yes. God is first cause, or he is not God. The first cause is God. The name, frankly, is not the point. In fact, from what little I know about the various names, they point at several things, including the fact that he is omnipotent creator, i.e. first cause.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The name, frankly, is not the point.

Ah, but God, Hod, and Nod are not simply three different names for the same guy.

God has a mind. Hod and Nod have no mind.

God and Hod are specific things that somehow just eternally exist. Nod, however, is simply the closest thing to nothing that is even possible.

So we are talking about three different possible creators, God, Hod, or Nod.

Do you have a reason to prefer God over the other two, other than repeatedly stating that you prefer God?

 

[Estrid]

Ah, but God, Hod, and Nod are not simply three different names for the same guy.

God has a mind. Hod and Nod have no mind.

God and Hod are specific things that somehow just eternally exist. Nod, however, is simply the closest thing to nothing that is even possible.

So we are talking about three different possible creators, God, Hod, or Nod.

Do you have a reason to prefer God over the other two, other than repeatedly stating that you prefer God?

However phrased, it's emotional reasons.
Same for not being able to accept such
things as deep time or evolution.

 

[Estrid]

As it works out, yes. God is first cause, or he is not God. The first cause is God. The name, frankly, is not the point. In fact, from what little I know about the various names, they point at several things, including the fact that he is omnipotent creator, i.e. first cause.

"Fact"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have a reason to prefer God over the other two, other than repeatedly stating that you prefer God?

Do you believe in Hod and/or Nod?

If not, mind if we don't either?

 

[AV1611VET]

However phrased, it's emotional reasons.

Hod and Nod are figments of an imagination.

God is real and makes impressions on our engrams.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Notice He said ALL.

That includes you and Merle.

Hod and Nod ... well ... figments can't draw us all like God can.

The problem is that many of those drawn to God, draw back to perdition.

Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

And the more people play this tug-of-war game with God, the more they become anesthetized to it.

And science provides the excuses they search for to draw back unto perdition.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, but God, Hod, and Nod are not simply three different names for the same guy.

God has a mind. Hod and Nod have no mind.

God and Hod are specific things that somehow just eternally exist. Nod, however, is simply the closest thing to nothing that is even possible.

So we are talking about three different possible creators, God, Hod, or Nod.

Do you have a reason to prefer God over the other two, other than repeatedly stating that you prefer God?

So, like @AV1611VET said, do YOU have some reason to believe in Hod or Nod? As far as I can tell, they are not possible. But YOU called them possible. Why?

 

[Mark Quayle]

"Fact"?

The fact that IF God exists, he is omnipotent creator. Better?

Or, maybe, "the name assumes the fact". Maybe that is what you needed to hear.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you believe in Hod and/or Nod?

If not, mind if we don't either?

How many times would you like me to repeat, "I don't know"?

It might have been God; it might have been Hod; it might have been Nod.

Got it?

 

[AV1611VET]

How many times would you like me to repeat, "I don't know"?

It might have been God; it might have been Hod; it might have been Nod.

Got it?

No I don't.

Would you clarify that please?

Who are Hod and Nod?

 

[doubtingmerle]

So, like @AV1611VET said, do YOU have some reason to believe in Hod or Nod? As far as I can tell, they are not possible. But YOU called them possible. Why?

Once again, I keep linking to the page that explains that Nod is possible-- The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil Goes Wrong for Theists • Richard Carrier. Please let me know if you want me to give you this link a few dozen more times.

And Hod? Yes, very possible. He is much simpler than God, and would have all the power to create this universe. Why not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, I keep linking to the page that explains that Nod is possible--

I don't care if they're possible or not?

I'd like to know if YOU believe in them?

If you don't, is it okay with you if I don't either?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The fact that IF God exists, he is omnipotent creator. Better?

Why could there not be a God that has all the power to create the universe, but is not omnipotent?

But if you must distinguish the two, let's break it out into four options for the source of the universe: God Almighty, God Sufficient, Hod, and Nod.

God Almighty can do anything, including making 2 + 2 = 53,567. God Almighty can take just 2 horizontal lines and 2 vertical lines and make a 53,567-agon. God Sufficient could create our universe, but has his limits.

I think God Sufficient is more likely than God Almighty. Why do you think God Almighty is more likely?

 

[doubtingmerle]

No I don't.

Would you clarify that please?

Who are Hod and Nod?

See my previous post-- Human Evolution post #512