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

[atpollard]

Do you know what its good for?

“What is the Bible good for?”

Introducing people to the ‘person’ of God, thus allowing the creation to advance from beyond knowing ABOUT the Creator to actually KNOWING the Creator.

KNOWING ABOUT GOD:

[Romans 1:18-23 NLT] 18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. 21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.​

KNOWING THE PERSON OF GOD:

[John 5:39-40 NLT] 39 "You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life.​

 

[Job 33:6]

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

Your first question is like asking, "if you aren't talking about what the sun means, then how is anyone supposed to agree on what the sun is?"

Well, it doesn't matter to me if people agree on what the sun is or not. Rather, the point is that we know it exists beyond our opinions of what it is. When you look at it long enough, your retinas will burn out of your skull. Now whether you think it's a demi God made of fire, or if you think it's made of hydrogen and helium, is irrelevant to the fact that it pre existed mankind.

And no, you can't give any human being credit for creating the sun. If you want to believe that mankind created the sun and you would like to give credit to mankind for creating the sun, then I guess we can just agree to disagree.

adios.

 

[Astrid]

“What is the Bible good for?”

Introducing people to the ‘person’ of God, thus allowing the creation to advance from beyond knowing ABOUT the Creator to actually KNOWING the Creator.

KNOWING ABOUT GOD:

[Romans 1:18-23 NLT] 18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. 21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.​

KNOWING THE PERSON OF GOD:

[John 5:39-40 NLT] 39 "You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life.​

Thanks for answering

 

[SelfSim]

Your first question is like asking, "if you aren't talking about what the sun means, then how is anyone supposed to agree on what the sun is?"

Well, it doesn't matter to me if people agree on what the sun is or not. Rather, the point is that we know it exists beyond our opinions of what it is.

There are ony two ways known that humans establish that the Sun exists:
i) by way of your belief based opinions, (as you did just there) or,
ii) by way of the scientific objective method.
Neither way can somehow result in something actually existing 'beyond the minds of people' following either of those ways, now can it?

Stomp your foot and insist as many times as you wish .. it makes no difference .. You will end up choosing one of those two ways.

When you look at it long enough, your retinas will burn out of your skull.

Yes that's what looking at the Sun too long, means.

Now whether you think it's a demi God made of fire, or if you think it's made of hydrogen and helium, is irrelevant to the fact that it pre existed mankind.

And you know this .. how, exactly?

And no, you can't give any human being credit for creating the sun. If you want to believe that mankind created the sun and you would like to give credit to mankind for creating the sun, then I guess we can just agree to disagree.

I don't believe that at all .. but if I did, you just demonstrated the belief way. I choose the scientific method way however .. its a far more practical way of obtaining agreement on what the Sun actually is.

 

[SelfSim]

@Isaiah 41:10: Perhaps an illustrative example might assist you, (and @Estrid apparently), in understanding the general concept.

Let me try using a slightly more difficult example of a typical conversation:

Me: Please tell me something you regard as physically real (ie: existing);
Person#1: The Empire State building, (etc.)

Me: Ok .. so the Empire State building is something you are sure exists independently of human minds?
Person#1: Yes.

Me: And why are you sure it exists?
Person#1: For reasons X, Y, and Z.

Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?
Person#1: Yes.

Me: Those are the parts that aren't independent of your (human) mind.
(And yet somehow, the Empire State building is? )

Credit where credit is due for 'existing things' - humans deserve it.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Isaiah 41:10: Perhaps an illustrative example might assist you, (and @Estrid apparently), in understanding the general concept.

Let me try using a slightly more difficult example of a typical conversation:

Me: Please tell me something you regard as physically real (ie: existing);
Person#1: The Empire State building, (etc.)

Me: Ok .. so the Empire State building is something you are sure exists independently of human minds?
Person#1: Yes.

Me: And why are you sure it exists?
Person#1: For reasons X, Y, and Z.

Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?
Person#1: Yes.

Me: Those are the parts that aren't independent of your (human) mind.
(And yet somehow, the Empire State building is? )

Credit where credit is due for 'existing things' - humans deserve it.

Yes, the sun, or empire state building do exist outside of our minds. Unless you believe that you're some brain in a jar, living in some computer simulation where nothing is real at all, and you think that the universe will cease to exist when you die.

Personally, I don't subscribe to such ideas. But I suppose if that's how you live and see the universe, you're welcome to do so.

 

[SelfSim]

Personally, I don't subscribe to such ideas.

Yes, we all see that what you do subscribe to there, are untestable ideas.

But I suppose if that's how you live and see the universe, you're welcome to do so.

I choose the scientifc method way, which was obviously developed by humans.
Its not terrific, but its way better than all the other ways humans 'see' the universe.

Either way, credit where credit is due: and that credit goes to humans.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, we all see that what you do subscribe to there, are untestable ideas.
I choose the scientifc method way, which was obviously developed by humans.
Its not terrific, but its way better than all the other ways humans 'see' the universe.

Either way, credit where credit is due: and that credit goes to humans.

If you choose to trust in the scientific method, you would understand that mankind did not create the sun, right? So why give credit to mankind for creating the sun? Do you not agree then that the sun predated mankind, and thus mankind cannot be accredited for the sun's existence?

 

[SelfSim]

If you choose to trust in the scientific method, you would understand that mankind did not create the sun, right?

The objective evidence suggests that the formation of Sun may have been triggered by shockwaves from one or more nearby supernovae.
You'll note the words 'trust' and 'create' don't appear in that sentence. The other relevant descriptive terms like 'supernovae' and 'shockwaves' are objectively testable models, conceived by scientifically thinking human minds.

Oh and of course, I'm not claiming the nonsensical notion of: 'humans created the Sun'.
That's just your current misunderstanding of what I'm saying.
Do you agree that humans defined the words we're using? If you use a dictionary, where do you think the word definitions/meanings we see in them came from?

So why give credit to mankind for creating the sun? Do you not agree then that the sun predated mankind, and thus mankind cannot be accredited for the sun's existence?

The point is that entirely depends on how anyone arrives at a meaning for the word: 'existence', whilst making the observation that its human minds that are doing that.

Its quite amazing and with certainty, credit worthy.
You might not like that .. but its trivially obvious. Do you deny that?

 

[Job 33:6]

The objective evidence suggests that the formation of Sun may have been triggered by shockwaves from one or more nearby supernovae.
You'll note the words 'trust' and 'create' don't appear in that sentence. The other relevant descriptive terms like 'supernovae' and 'shockwaves' are objectively testable models, conceived by scientifically thinking human minds.

Oh and of course, I'm not claiming the nonsensical notion of: 'humans created the Sun'.
That's just your current misunderstanding of what I'm saying.
Do you agree that humans defined the words we're using? If you use a dictionary, where do you think the word definitions/meanings we see in them came from?

The point is that entirely depends on how anyone arrives at a meaning for the word: 'existence', whilst making the observation that its human minds that are doing that.

Its quite amazing and with certainty, credit worthy.
You might not like that .. but its trivially obvious. Do you deny that?

Ok, so to stay in topic with the discussion, prior to you joining in, we were discussing the question of if mankind should be given credit for the existence of things like gravity, or the sun.

Because you understand that mankind did not create the sun, I think it's fair to conclude that you would agree that people ought not to receive credit for the existence of the sun. So, assuming this is the case, thank you for agreeing.

And that's all. If you want to derail the topic and go into a discussion on the philosophical questions of if anything exists beyond our mind, we can, but I'd like to atleast get our initial topic concluded beforehand.

 

[SelfSim]

Because you understand that mankind did not create the sun, I think it's fair to conclude that you would agree that people ought not to receive credit for the existence of the sun. So, assuming this is the case, thank you for agreeing.

So, you revert to your own belief obscured misconception of the perspective I've presented, which is that your above conclusion depends entirely on what you mean by 'create' and 'existence' (and how you arrived at those respective meanings). Intellectual dishonesty thus raises its ugly head, (yet again).
I say you did it all by way of a belief, where the term 'belief' can be assigned the operation definition of:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

Ok, so to stay in topic with the discussion, prior to you joining in, we were discussing the question of if mankind should be given credit for the existence of things like gravity, or the sun.
...
And that's all. If you want to derail the topic and go into a discussion on the philosophical questions of if anything exists beyond our mind, we can, but I'd like to at least get our initial topic concluded beforehand.

I'm right on the topic you & @Estrid raised and if you look back, I have kept on emphasising that with my repeated conclusion: 'credit where credit is due: and that credit goes to humans'.

 

[Job 33:6]

'.
I'm right on the topic you & @Estrid raised and if you look back, I have kept on emphasising that with my repeated conclusion: 'credit where credit is due: and that credit goes to humans'.

No, you immediately went off topic.

You see, I remained talking about the same topic while you attempted to drag things in a direction of philosophical views about whether or not things exist beyond the mind.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, you immediately went off topic.

View attachment 317251
View attachment 317252

You see, I remained talking about the same topic while you attempted to drag things in a direction of philosophical views about whether or not things exist beyond the mind.

Even here, I clarified by stating that no human created the laws of the universe, such as the prior example of gravity. No person created gravity or the sun, or things that existed before any human.

Then you responded by bringing up manmade laws that describe things like gravity, rather than gravity itself.

Hence the phrase, God created and Linneaus organized.

I was never talking about manmade theories used to describe the universe, I was talking about the universe itself and things of it, the sun, gravity etc.

 

[SelfSim]

Wow .. you haven't understood one concept put in front of you throughout this entire sub-discussion, have you?

Even here, I clarified by stating that no human created the laws of the universe, such as the prior example of gravity. No person created gravity or the sun, or things that existed before any human.

Then you responded by bringing up manmade laws that describe things like gravity, rather than gravity itself.

Hence the phrase, God created and Linneaus organized.

I was never talking about manmade theories used to describe the universe, I was talking about the universe itself and things of it, the sun, gravity etc.

And what you continue to fail in understanding is that your own words: 'the universe itself', 'the Sun' and 'gravity itself' were all defined over centuries of work done by human beings. Without those people doing that work, your words would have zero meaning. Aka: what you think they refer to, would be precisely *zip*.

You seem to think its a given that those words refer to 'things which exist outside of' their descriptions. That is your mental blockage.

Repeating your misconceptions and then accusing me of taking the sub conversation off topic because of some conceptual blockage of yours, when confronted with new distinctions you've never encountered before, is not my problem.

 

[Job 33:6]

Wow .. you haven't understood one concept put in front of you throughout this entire sub-discussion, have you?And what you continue to fail in understanding is that your own words: 'the universe itself', 'the Sun' and 'gravity itself' were all defined over centuries of work done by human beings. Without those people doing that work, your words would have zero meaning. Aka: what you think they refer to, would be precisely *zip*.

You seem to think its a given that those words refer to 'things which exist outside of' their descriptions. That is your mental blockage.

Repeating your misconceptions and then accusing me of taking the sub conversation off topic because of some conceptual blockage of yours, when confronted with new distinctions you've never encountered before, is not my problem.

Yes, I understand that we define the sun a certain way in text books, but that of course doesn't mean that we created the sun or deserve credit for the sun's existence.

And yes, the sun (a thing) does exist outside of its descriptions, as we both agree the sun has existed billions of years before mankind ever even thought of descriptive terms.

Therefore, because the sun pre existed mankind, which we both agree on, mankind couldn't possibly be given credit for the existence of it.

Mankind can be given credit for ideas that help describe it, such as the words "hot" or "bright". That's fine. But they cannot be given credit for it's existence.

 

[atpollard]

You seem to think its a given that those words refer to 'things which exist outside of' their descriptions. That is your mental blockage.

An infant has no concept of gravity and crawls out of a window … does it fall?

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, I understand that we define the sun a certain way in text books, but that of course doesn't mean that we created the sun or deserve credit for the sun's existence.

Science defines 'the Sun' in the same way as all of science's definitions, ie: operationally .. which means in terms of measurable quantities such as mass, volume, temperature, (etc).
The phrase 'created the Sun' never appears in reputable science. That term is evidence of a belief biasing your perceptions of what I'm saying here. Science uses terms such as 'formed' or 'coalesced' because the aim is to not assume anything was created by a something, prior to having evidence of that.

And yes, the sun (a thing) does exist outside of its descriptions, as we both agree the sun has existed billions of years before mankind ever even thought of descriptive terms.

How do you think science concluded 'the sun has existed billions of years'?

There was a time not so long ago (1853) that the Sun was considered as being a pile of burning coal.

How could 'what the Sun actually is', possibly have changed so radically, to the extent one would nowadays be (rightly) ridiculed for claiming that's 'what it actually is' and that 'it had existed that way for billions of years', if people hadn't been directly responsible for saying what it is and how long its been around?

Therefore, because the sun pre existed mankind, which we both agree on, mankind couldn't possibly be given credit for the existence of it.

You continue to use the term 'existence'. Do you not yet see how that word is also determined by humans?
If so, why would you continue using arguments for implying the opposite of that? (Ie: nothing at all to do with humans)?

Mankind can be given credit for ideas that help describe it, such as the words "hot" or "bright". That's fine. But they cannot be given credit for it's existence.

There you go again .. implying that we should accept that what you mean by 'existence' is somehow completely completely different from all the other words we use.

 

[SelfSim]

An infant has no concept of gravity and crawls out of a window … does it fall?

The answer is: of course it does, because what we mean by an infant, doing what we mean by crawling out of a window, and what we mean by gravity, does what we mean by fall(ing).

The human dependence of all of that, could not possibly be more obvious, it's a hypothetical child and a hypothetical window for crying out loud!

But of course, that doesn't make sense to many believers because they don't think their beliefs about say, hypothetical future or past times, or children crawling out windows, are about hypothetical things, even though that's the meaning of hypothetical.

Such is the nature of belief .. it generates blind spots (or blockages) to scientific, objective thought.

 

[Job 33:6]

How could 'what the Sun actually is', possibly have changed so radically, to the extent one would nowadays be (rightly) ridiculed for claiming that's 'what it actually is' and that 'it had existed that way for billions of years', if people hadn't been directly responsible for saying what it is and how long its been around?

It's pretty simple and straight forward, the existence of the sun is not dependent upon what we think about it, nor is it's age. And as someone who allegedly accepts science, you should know that, and you ought to be well aware that it has predated us. And therefore, we can take no credit for it's existence, ie there is nothing we did to make it exist, it simply was there before we ever were born or existed ourselves.

Science demonstrates that things exist beyond perceptions. We simply use words to describe them, but of course they exist beyond our words. Before anyone ever invented the word "sun", the sun existed. Therefore it doesn't really matter what we call it or what we think it is or is not. Because physical reality demonstrates that it pre existed us.

 

[SelfSim]

It's pretty simple and straight forward, the existence of the sun is not dependent upon what we think about it, nor is it's age.

Can you demonstrate how you know that for certain in a way that doesn't depend on what you think about it then, as you just did, (ie: 'pretty simple and straight forward' and 'not dependent upon')?

(I'm open to your suggestions there .. good luck in your attempts, however).

And as someone who allegedly accepts science, you should know that, and you ought to be well aware that it has predated us. And therefore, we can take no credit for it's existence, ie there is nothing we did to make it exist, it simply was there before we ever were born or existed ourselves.

What you refer to there, (which I accept because of the evidence), has always been some type of model humans constructed for what the Sun is.
(The underlined 'is' there, of course, being how we also invoke the concept of exists).

If you want my evidence for that, just look at the titles of Sections 1 to 10 in the Wiki on Sun here and show us how those titles aren't models or parameters thereof, (and the history of their development), for defining what the Sun is.

Science demonstrates that things exist beyond perceptions.

Nope .. science only ever tests its models .. and never 'the thing itself'.
Whenever you reject what I say there, I predict it can be shown that you'll only be invoking your, (underlined), persistent belief there .. and so it becomes a fallacious circular argument fallacy which is based on nothing more than that singlular core belief.

We simply use words to describe them, but of course they exist beyond our words. Before anyone ever invented the word "sun", the sun existed. Therefore it doesn't really matter what we call it or what we think it is or is not. Because physical reality demonstrates that it pre existed us.

No .. you can't make any credible claims on 'physical reality' demonstrations, when your concept of what you mean by that, is the issue at stake here.

Can you offer anything other than fallacious arguments by repetition, circularity, or foot stomping raw insistence, that your belief there, is merely what you hold as being true?