If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?

[Astrid]

That's not much of a response to what I said.

I read it. I know what it says.

And that every Christian says it means something different.

 

[Job 33:6]

What permeates it? Supernatural stuff that stands up
to scrutiny?
Six days creation, flood, babel, red Sea, Paul's snake story?

Love and trust permeates Job, Passover, what?

As for Chinese or other ethics we respect our ancestors
and it seems Christians don't.

How can you guys not give them a scrap of
credit for developing anything without getting
supernatural help? So disrespectful!

And for the Adam / Eve first 6000ya
literists, they are denying
their ancestors ever even existed!

I don't see love permeating a religion that
teaches such disrespect as that.

God's word permeates scripture. As for respecting ancestors, our ancestors were the ones who wrote about God, so how is it disrespectful to believe in what they taught us about?

Many believers in God are not YECs. So I don't really see these other comments as meaningful to the discussion.

 

[Astrid]

God's word permeates scripture. As for respecting ancestors, our ancestors were the ones who wrote about God, so how is it disrespectful to believe in what they taught us about?

Many believers in God are not YECs. So I don't really see these other comments as meaningful to the discussion.

You SAY it "permeates". A Believer has to believe
that. Whatever it even means.
Even though it permeates so much that is so
obviously non factual.
We recognize that. No need to repeat.

As for disrespect, did you even read what I said?
That it is diresoectful to assume ancestors were
incapable of morality without supernatural help?
That is what you are doing.

It's not just a yec thing.

As for believing everything they said, if they lived today
they wouldn't believe all of it either. Assuming some
intelligence and that they were not taking dictation.
No respect earned for doing that.

Newton was an alchemist because he didn't know any
better. That's ok. He tried, and he did it himself, no
supernatural guidance.

 

[brinny]

That's not much of a response to what I said.

I read it. I know what it says.

And that every Christian says it means something different.

Are you responding to me re: my question about studying Genesis, Estrid?

 

[Job 33:6]

You SAY it "permeates". A Believer has to believe
that. Whatever it even means.
Even though it permeates so much that is so
obviously non factual.
We recognize that. No need to repeat.

As for disrespect, did you even read what I said?
That it is diresoectful to assume ancestors were
incapable of morality without supernatural help?
That is what you are doing.

It's not just a yec thing.

As for believing everything they said, if they lived today they wouldn't believe all of it either. Assuming some
intelligence and that they were not taking dictation.
No respect earned for doing that.

Newton was an alchemist because he didn't know any
better. That's ok. He tried, and he did it himself, no
supernatural guidance.

Just as a non-believer has no choice but to not believe?

In scripture, mankind is given free will to make moral choices. So I don't think I'd say anyone was incapable of morality without supernatural help.

But I would say it's respectful to honor what they wrote down and believed, ie scripture.

 

[Astrid]

Just as a non-believer has no choice but to not believe?

In scripture, mankind is given free will to make moral choices. So I don't think I'd say anyone was incapable of morality without supernatural help.

But I would say it's respectful to honor what they wrote down and believed, ie scripture.

"No choice" but to disbelieve? Cute, but seriously?
At least you agree you are committed to belief,
regardless.
I'm not committed to disbelief. I like evidence, data,
logic, reasons.
So to your question, no.

"anyone incapable". Straw man

If morality comes from God then we needed help,
If we didn't need help then, who needs God to
permeate such moral ambiguity as provided by the bible?

There is no disrespect in saying the old timers got
a lot of things amusingly or tragically wrong.

It is disrespectful to say they needed
supernatural help.

 

[Job 33:6]

"No choice" but to disbelieve? Cute, but seriously?
At least you agree you are committed to belief,
regardless.
I'm not committed to disbelief. I like evidence, data,
logic, reasons.
So to your question, no.

"anyone incapable". Straw man

If morality comes from God then we needed help,
If we didn't need help then, who needs God to
permeate such moral ambiguity as provided by the bible?

There is no disrespect in saying the old timers got
a lot of things amusingly or tragically wrong.

It is disrespectful to say they needed
supernatural help.

Why are you not committed to disbelief? But somehow I'm committed to belief? If you are not a believer, then you have no choice but to disbelieve, just as believers have no choice but to believe. Unless you think we have some kind of choice in what we believe or disbelieve in. As if someone could choose to disbelieve in the sun for example. That's just not how belief works, it's not a choice. In which case, you would be committed to disbelief, without choice.

Unless you think that commitment is a choice. In which case, I would not describe my belief as a commitment because it is not something I choose, rather I simply experience it, just as I do not choose whether or not I believe in the sun, I simply do.

I like evidence, reason and logic too.

I disagree with your phrasing of the topic. It's like saying, if my physical body comes from God, that I need God to have legs. In one sense it is true, but it's no disrespect to anyone to acknowledge that they're dependent upon a history that they have no control over.

If my right arm came from God, is it an insult to think that I need God to have a right arm? Why should anyone find that insulting? It's not like mankind has the power to grow arms on our own free will choice.

Alternatively, as noted before, people don't need to believe in God to make moral choices, I never said that. In which case, you could be a moral person even if you are a disbeliever.

 

[Astrid]

Why are you not committed to disbelief? But somehow I'm committed to belief? If you are not a believer, then you have no choice but to disbelieve, just as believers have no choice but to believe. Unless you think we have some kind of choice in what we believe or disbelieve in. As if someone could choose to disbelieve in the sun for example. That's just not how belief works, it's not a choice. In which case, you would be committed to disbelief, without choice.

Unless you think that commitment is a choice. In which case, I would not describe my belief as a commitment because it is not something I choose, rather I simply experience it, just as I do not choose whether or not I believe in the sun, I simply do.

I like evidence, reason and logic too.

I disagree with your phrasing of the topic. It's like saying, if my physical body comes from God, that I need God to have legs. In one sense it is true, but it's no disrespect to anyone to acknowledge that they're dependent upon a history that they have no control over.

If my right arm came from God, is it an insult to think that I need God to have a right arm? Why should anyone find that insulting? It's not like mankind has the power to grow arms on our own free will choice.

Alternatively, as noted before, people don't need to believe in God to make moral choices, I never said that. In which case, you could be a moral person even if you are a disbeliever.

Disregarding semantics about commitment etc-

If it suits you to think people had to have God guide
them in their morality, or provide us with arms, fine.
It's just another zero- evidence belief.

I will go with giving my ancestors full credit for doing all
that it took to get from whatever deep pre-human state to
where we are now.

 

[Job 33:6]

Disregarding semantics about commitment etc-

If it suits you to think people had to have God guide
them in their morality, or provide us with arms, fine.
It's just another zero- evidence belief.

I will go with giving my ancestors full credit for doing all
that it took to get from whatever deep pre-human state to
where we are now.

Like I said, people don't need belief in God to do moral things. As for people who claimed that God helped them do moral things, it seems respectful to me that we would take them at their word.

For people in the world who don't believe in God, to each their own. I wouldnt ever suggest that they were incapable of doing moral things.

But, I won't give credit to my ancestors for things like gravity, nor do I give them credit for growing arma or evolving or for having legs. Some things our ancestors simply had no control over, but rather were dealt a hand by things that they never had any say or choice over.

 

[Astrid]

Like I said, people don't need belief in God to do moral things. As for people who claimed that God helped them do moral things, it seems respectful to me that we would take them at their word.

For people in the world who don't believe in God, to each their own. I wouldnt ever suggest that they were incapable of doing moral things.

But, I won't give credit to my ancestors for things like gravity, nor do I give them credit for growing arma or evolving or for having legs. Some things our ancestors simply had no control over, but rather were dealt a hand by things that they never had any say or choice over.

Good enuf. God- permeation and guidance is dropped.
What's the bible good for...?


I won't disrespect someone for saying god helped them,
or believe it either one.

Your ancestors get no credit for surviving?
How about developing civilization and morals?

 

[Job 33:6]

Good enuf. God- permeation and guidance is dropped.
What's the bible good for...?

I won't disrespect someone for saying god helped them,
or believe it either one.

Your ancestors get no credit for surviving?
How about developing civilization and morals?

People cannot get credit for things that they made no choice to do or to be. Such as, being human. How could you or I receive credit for being human? As an example. But as I've said multiple times now, people have free will, and with that, anyone can perform morally good acts and can make morally good choices. We tend to refer to these things as "good works" in scripture.

And the Bible is a form of revelation. People don't need the Bible to make moral choices in life, but that of course wouldn't mean that scripture isnt influencing moral decisions every day.

 

[SelfSim]

But, I won't give credit to my ancestors for things like gravity, nor do I give them credit for growing arma or evolving or for having legs. Some things our ancestors simply had no control over, but rather were dealt a hand by things that they never had any say or choice over.

They had the choice of looking for evidence, which then happened to turn out to be in support of their suspicions.

Isn't that worthy of credit?

 

[Job 33:6]

They had the choice of looking for evidence, which then happened to turn out to be in support of their suspicions.

Isn't that worthy of credit?

I mean for the existence of gravity itself, not for the discovery of the theory of gravity, if that's what you mean. You can't really give a person credit for creating gravity for example.

 

[Astrid]

People cannot get credit for things that they made no choice to do or to be. Such as, being human. How could you or I receive credit for being human? As an example. But as I've said multiple times now, people have free will, and with that, anyone can perform morally good acts and can make morally good choices. We tend to refer to these things as "good works" in scripture.

And the Bible is a form of revelation. People don't need the Bible to make moral choices in life, but that of course wouldn't mean that scripture isnt influencing moral decisions every day.

The bible, like all other religious works daily influences people, for
good and ill. Obviously

The bible is revealed, or inspired?
Surely god did not reveal the stuff that ain't so.

Sometimes I totally don't get what the bible is
supposed to do, if it can't be relied on to be accurate,
and makes commands of some basic moral standards
long known everywhere while ignoring others, like
slavery.

Half the time nobody even knows what it is saying.

Do you know what its good for?

 

[Job 33:6]

All news of the obviousincluding that the bible, like
all other religious works daily influence people, for
good and ill.

Sure.

Wonders where we started our conversation*

 

[SelfSim]

I mean for the existence of gravity itself, not for the discovery of the theory of gravity, if that's what you mean. You can't really give a person credit for creating gravity for example.

How could anyone possibly know of the existence of gravity itself, if there was no-one around to tell you what gravity is and no-one to 'know' anything about it?
Give credit where its due .. ie: humans!

 

[Job 33:6]

How could anyone possibly know of the existence of gravity itself, if there was no-one around to tell you what gravity is and no-one to 'know' anything about it?
Give credit where its due .. ie: humans!

I'll rephrase. We couldn't give credit to any person for the existence of gravity, because of course no human being created the laws of the universe. It's not like there was a time where gravity didn't exist and a bunch of people say around writing down different equations until they came to einsteins relativity, then they pressed a magic button and then gravity came into existence and the solar system subsequently formed.

Of course I give credit to people like Einstein for coming to identify GMM/R^2 and it's correlation with electromagnetism and all. But it wouldn't really make sense to give mankind credit for the actual existence of these pre existing things. Just as I wouldn't give myself credit for having a left arm. Some things you just don't have any say over.

 

[SelfSim]

I'll rephrase. We couldn't give credit to any person for the existence of gravity, because of course no human being created the laws of the universe.

Then why are the fundamental laws of classical mechanics (physics) called Newton's laws? Why are the laws of planetary motion called Kepler's laws? The law of universal gravitation is called Newton's law of universal gravitation? The heliocentric theory is called the Copernican theory (or the Copernican system)?
That list of evidence shows that people created the meanings of whatever those laws refer to and humans even designated special terms to distinguish separate meanings for the actual things there: classical mechanics, planetary motion, universal gravitation and heliocentric system.

Also, prior to Newton, (ancient Greece), what we now call gravity, was just a belief that objects fell towards the Earth because the Earth was the center of the Universe and attracted all of the mass in the Universe towards it. It was loosely called Aristotle's view.

So how does what gravity means, which has changed dramatically throughout human history by humans, somehow demonstrate that the universe already had what we mean by those terms before the humans mentioned above, did what they did?

t's not like there was a time where gravity didn't exist and a bunch of people say around writing down different equations until they came to einsteins relativity, then they pressed a magic button and then gravity came into existence and the solar system subsequently formed.

(Noted with irony that you're also using Einstein's name when referring to relativity there).

From what I demonstrated above, your use of the word gravity to refer to our evidently highly changing concept of what it actually is, surely raises suspicions that it ain't the fixed thing owned by the other fixed thing which is presumably entirely separate from us, called the universe, (where 'universe' is demonstrably yet another highly changable human concept throughout human history).
Humans, (such as Newton), assigned gravity as a defining property of 'universe' .. not the other way around. The evidence shows you've got it backwards, me reckons(?)

Of course I give credit to people like Einstein for coming to identify GMM/R^2 and it's correlation with electromagnetism and all. But it wouldn't really make sense to give mankind credit for the actual existence of these pre existing things. Just as I wouldn't give myself credit for having a left arm. Some things you just don't have any say over.

Oh don't forget Maxwell's description of what you actually mean there by 'electromagnetism', done by him, in his 1873 publication called A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism .. that being where what you actually mean whenever you use that term.
(The same argument outlined above, also applies in the case of 'arms/legs' etc).

 

[Job 33:6]

Then why are the fundamental laws of classical mechanics (physics) called Newton's laws? Why are the laws of planetary motion called Kepler's laws? The law of universal gravitation is called Newton's law of universal gravitation? The heliocentric theory is called the Copernican theory (or the Copernican system)?
That list of evidence shows that people created the meanings of whatever those laws refer to and humans even designated special terms to distinguish separate meanings for the actual things there: classical mechanics, planetary motion, universal gravitation and heliocentric system.

Also, prior to Newton, (ancient Greece), what we now call gravity, was just a belief that objects fell towards the Earth because the Earth was the center of the Universe and attracted all of the mass in the Universe towards it. It was loosely called Aristotle's view.

So how does what gravity means, which has changed dramatically throughout human history by humans, somehow demonstrate that the universe already had what we mean by those terms before the humans mentioned above, did what they did?

(Noted with irony that you're also using Einstein's name when referring to relativity there).

From what I demonstrated above, your use of the word gravity to refer to our evidently highly changing concept of what it actually is, surely raises suspicions that it ain't the fixed thing owned by the other fixed thing which is presumably entirely separate from us, called the universe, (where 'universe' is demonstrably yet another highly changable human concept throughout human history).
Humans, (such as Newton), assigned gravity as a defining property of 'universe' .. not the other way around. The evidence shows you've got it backwards, me reckons(?)

Oh don't forget Maxwell's description of what you actually mean there by 'electromagnetism', done by him, in his 1873 publication called A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism .. that being where what you actually mean whenever you use that term.
(The same argument outlined above, also applies in the case of 'arms/legs' etc).

I'll just continue to clarify on what I mean.

So you said "So how does what gravity means, which has changed dramatically throughout human history by humans, somehow demonstrate that the universe already had what we mean by those terms before the humans mentioned above, did what they did?"

I'm not talking about what gravity means, I'm talking about what gravity is. And of course gravity actually existed before any human being ever described it by naming it anything.

Are you suggesting that perhaps gravity, actual physical gravity in which particles attract to one another, didn't exist before someone made up for a name for it?

Like if we rewound time to the days of Australopithecus, were they just floating in space because gravity didn't exist because none of them had thought up a theory for it? "Hurry up and come up with a name for this Einstein! I'm getting dizzy floating around in space!"

Obviously particles attracted to one another long before anyone had a name for it. Indeed before we ever existed.

What's that popular phrase.
Deus creavit, Linnaeus disposuit”
God created, Linneaus organized.

Meaning that things pre existed mankind, we simply describe them, but of course we couldn't receive credit for creating the actual entities that we describe.

Then you said "your use of the word gravity to refer to our evidently highly changing concept of what it actually is".

But surely "it" is something. There is actually something there, despite our changing understanding of it. The sun is something that exists despite our changing understanding of what it actually is. And surely mankind cannot be given credit for the existence of the sun, just because we have descriptions of what it is that have changed throughout time.

 

[SelfSim]

I'll just continue to clarify on what I mean.
..
I'm not talking about what gravity means, I'm talking about what gravity is.

Well if you're not talking about what gravity means, then how is anyone supposed to agree with you about 'what gravity is', given that you just eliminated the meaning of that term and presumably, that phrase, which I also notice, merely asserts its existence, (with no accompanying evidence or reasons)?

And of course gravity actually existed before any human being ever described it by naming it anything.

Are you suggesting that perhaps gravity, actual physical gravity in which particles attract to one another, didn't exist before someone made up for a name for it?

Depends on what you mean by 'exist' .. or are you going to disqualify what you mean by that whenever you invoke that concept also?

Like if we rewound time to the days of Australopithecus, were they just floating in space because gravity didn't exist because none of them had thought up a theory for it? "Hurry up and come up with a name for this Einstein! I'm getting dizzy floating around in space!"

So, you invoke your hypothetical to make your point .. Are you going to give yourself the credit for doing that .. or does such credit go someplace else?

Obviously particles attracted to one another long before anyone had a name for it. Indeed before we ever existed.

'Particles', eh? Some might argue with you about your suppposedly 'obvious' gravitational interactions of particles there.
I suppose that depends on what one means by 'particle'.

What's that popular phrase.
Deus creavit, Linnaeus disposuit”
God created, Linneaus organized.

Meaning that things pre existed mankind, we simply describe them, but of course we couldn't receive credit for creating the actual entities that we describe.

With the reason for that assertion being .. well, .. what exactly? Oh .. that's right .. neither you, nor the original speaker of those words, gave any a reason.

Aren't you assuming that we'd all give credit to the meaning conveyed by whomever uttered those words in quotes there? I choose not to.

Then you said "your use of the word gravity to refer to our evidently highly changing concept of what it actually is".

But surely "it" is something. There is actually something there, despite our changing understanding of it. The sun is something that exists despite our changing understanding of what it actually is. And surely mankind cannot be given credit for the existence of the sun, just because we have descriptions of what it is that have changed throughout time.

When we glimpse upwards on a clear day, our eyes distinguish 'a something'. We attempt to describe our mind's perception of that something, using language which conveys a meaning to those around us. As soon as that description rolls of the ends of our tongues, it almost always invokes the other concepts we carry with us called existence, or reality .. and time.
That's how 'the Sun' becomes real.

Credit where credit's due .. and that credit, justifiably, goes to humans.
Adios amigo .. I'm off to do other stuff ..