In The Beginning.

[Taure]

To all those people chanting "God is good":

You call a desk "good", meaning that it is fit for its purpose.

You call bread "good", meaning that it is tasty.

You call a T.V. programme "good", meaning that it entertains you.

You call a man "Good", meaning that he is a moral man.

In every instance, the word "good" has meant different things - it is equivocal.

So the statement "God is good" has no meaning, for we have no idea what type of "good" God partakes in. Perhaps he is tasty like bread, or maybe he is simply fit for his purpose, or perhaps (and most likely) he has a whole different meaning of the word "good" all to himself, one that we do not know. So it is pointless saying "God is good".

Even if you use a qualifier, such as "God is morally good", now you have imposed human morality on God, and as such you have limited him, as humans themselves are limited. A limited God is no God at all. So this doesn't work.

Religious language 101.

Secondly, to those who wish to use the bible as infallible or as evidence: the bible is not infallible. Most of the new testament is simply a couple of letters of advice from a guy to a couple of churches. When they were written, thats all they were: letters holding advice. Would you deify your phone bill, as so many practically deify the letters recored in the bible? St. Paul himself admitted that he was fallible. So that would mean that his writings might not be true either. They offer good advice, and wisdom, but to view them as true, without anything to count against them, is dangerous .

 

[Chalnoth]

The Christian God is often personified as sort of like a man, but vastly more powerful and without any failings. Thus the statement that God is good has the same meaning to Christians that a man is good. At least, that's always been my experience.

 

[OdwinOddball]

The conclusions of science rest on an interpretation of evidence especially when it cannot be tested and demonstrated.
For example, the only things that can be known as facts about a fossil is that it lived, it died, and it was fossilised and anything else is guesswork.
Who it's ancestors/descendants were is nothing more than speculation.

Guesswork, not really. Deduction is more accurate. However there are several other aspects you forgot to include. We can tell based on the creatures dention what type of foods it ate. We can tell by its skeletal structure whether it walked on two limbs or on four. We can tell by its cranial capacity what its basic intelligence level was. We can read the marks of life experience on its bones to determine many major events in the creatures life. We can tell by pelvic structure whether it was male or female. When you combine all of these together, you get an overall picture of the creatures life and characteristics. With this information we cna compare it against other organisms. When we find correlation between them, we can then deduct their relation if any.

To call this a guess, is a gross understatement. Such "guess" are what drives all of science. From the technology that allows us to have this conversation, to the most esoteric theories on the fabric of the universe, all of science is based on hypothesis.

Its always both amusing and sad that the only areas where people see this as a problem are when science conflicts with supernatural believes. When its the science behind quantum mechanics, and thus all of modern electronics, its not a problem, but when the same methodology is applied to biology, that it suddenly becomes flawed in some peoples eyes says more about the people and their beliefs than it does about the efficacy of the scientific method.

I am not saying that science is wrong. What I am saying is that science does not know the answers to what it wasn't there to witness and cannot reproduce. I have no problem with anyone, scientist or otherwise, speculating but let's not lose sght of the fact that it is nohing more than that and never can be.

If you applied this rational to all of science, then all of science is bunk in your view. That means we are not having this conversation, because the science that enabled us to build microprocessors relies on particles that no person has ever seen.

Even f scientists were able to ''create'' life from non life in a lab that still would not prove that it happened originally or naturally.

Your right, that would not be 100% proof that that is how it happened. Nor however would it automatically mean that your god hypothesis was the only other option. If however, such an experiment produced valid results, and then we compared these results to what we know of the young earth and how life works and found that not only did it match the real world results, but also predicts them, then we have a very strong contender for a valid theory of how life started.

The trouble with you atheists is that you have hijacked science and attempted to incorporate your materialistic evolutionary philosophy in an effort to justify your disbelief in/denial of God.As far as the origin of the universe and life is concerned opinions and assumptions is all anyone's got.

FoeHammer.

The only justification I need to not believe in gods is the complete lack of evidence for them to exist. The battle between science and religion stems wholly from the religious side, who's believers like to pick and choose what science to accept not on its merits as science, but instead on whether or not it conflicts with the ideas and writings of people living 2000 years ago who didn't even know how the human body worked much less how we came to be.

When you stop trying to rebut science with religion instead of evidence we will stop these discussions.


Be consistent. If you reject some science because it cannot be directly observed then you must reject ALL science that cannot be directly observed. So if you want to continue on that line, please turn off your computer, unplug any electronic devices in your home, and stop using science that is based on these principles to your benefit. And then pray that you never get put on trial for a crime that depends on forensic investigation.

 

[LittleNipper]

Even when he orders people to kill?
Even when he orders people to commit genocide?

Thats a pretty twisted definition of good.

Did GOD indeed order Hiter to murder Jews?

 

[LittleNipper]

And you have evidence for this where?

See, going by the Bible, your God is described as such, but his actions through out the book, the actions of his followers in the book, and the actions of his followers for the last 2000 years show that he is quite the opposite.

If his followers would at least demonstrate this supposed love, it would at least be a start. Yet most do not, which makes the words sound all the more hollow.

The proof that GOD exists is Israel. If you don't understand this concept, then perhaps you could tell me where have all the Canaanites and Hittites gone. No one wanted to wipe them out for 4000 years running...... Where is the Czar? Where is Hitler? Yet the humble Jew is GOD's chosen and remains.... Can you explain this?

 

[LittleNipper]

The Christian God is often personified as sort of like a man, but vastly more powerful and without any failings. Thus the statement that God is good has the same meaning to Christians that a man is good. At least, that's always been my experience.

NO, it does not. The Bible is full of all the mistake men have made---even the godly ones. Study the Bible and not feminist magazines..... You will find it so much more fulfilling....

 

[LittleNipper]

To all those people chanting "God is good":

You call a desk "good", meaning that it is fit for its purpose.

You call bread "good", meaning that it is tasty.

You call a T.V. programme "good", meaning that it entertains you.

You call a man "Good", meaning that he is a moral man.

In every instance, the word "good" has meant different things - it is equivocal.

So the statement "God is good" has no meaning, for we have no idea what type of "good" God partakes in. Perhaps he is tasty like bread, or maybe he is simply fit for his purpose, or perhaps (and most likely) he has a whole different meaning of the word "good" all to himself, one that we do not know. So it is pointless saying "God is good".

Even if you use a qualifier, such as "God is morally good", now you have imposed human morality on God, and as such you have limited him, as humans themselves are limited. A limited God is no God at all. So this doesn't work.

Religious language 101.

Secondly, to those who wish to use the bible as infallible or as evidence: the bible is not infallible. Most of the new testament is simply a couple of letters of advice from a guy to a couple of churches. When they were written, thats all they were: letters holding advice. Would you deify your phone bill, as so many practically deify the letters recored in the bible? St. Paul himself admitted that he was fallible. So that would mean that his writings might not be true either. They offer good advice, and wisdom, but to view them as true, without anything to count against them, is dangerous .

Psalms 34:8

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in HIM.

 

[FishFace]

I've got evidence, scripture.

Great. So the Bible of the Flying Spaghetti monster has convinced you of his noodly goodness? Oh wait, sorry, you mean your scripture. What distinguishes that from all the others?

What's sauce for the goos is sauce for the gander as they say. I want you to give me evidence of evolution without reference to anything written or spoken by anyone else. Let's see your evidence is.

That's fine. I reference the fossil record, observations of evolution occurring and so on. The thing about science is that neither you nor I have to take one book or one scientist, or even several books or scientists, on their word. The whole point is that science is based on repeatable observation. You can go out there and look at the fossils yourself, you could, if you were that concerned, buy some high tech equipment, and observe genetic mutations going on.
For the Bible, all we can do is read it. There's no verifiability whatsoever. Furthermore, peer reviewed journals, for example, are well known for producing good material, so it is justifiable to take their word "on faith" as it were. The Bible has all kinds of odd proclamations - that contradict what we see in the world, and also contradict what those tried and tested journals are saying.

I get The Truth from scripture.

Excellent! So you'll be coming to the next IPU worshipper's meeting, then? Oh, you meant the Bible again.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Did GOD indeed order Hiter to murder Jews?

Depends on who you ask. According to Hitler himself, yes.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Did GOD indeed order Hiter to murder Jews?

Hitler believed so.

Looking at history it is quite clear he latched onto the history of Jewish persecution, primarily by Christians, as a means to galvanize the people of Germany behind his cause. His ideas of racial purity were based on Christian beliefs that the Jews were responsible for the death of their savior, and thus were damned. Hitler even made some attempts to gather Christian artefact's and artworks in order to harness the power of god directly.

 

[OdwinOddball]

The proof that GOD exists is Israel. If you don't understand this concept, then perhaps you could tell me where have all the Canaanites and Hittites gone. No one wanted to wipe them out for 4000 years running...... Where is the Czar? Where is Hitler? Yet the humble Jew is GOD's chosen and remains.... Can you explain this?

Israel is proof that Israel exists, thats it. Any other interpretation, such as your own requires numerous a priori assumptions, namely that god actually exists and that the Jews are his chosen people.

The rest of this is nonsensical and does not appear to be related to the topic. If it is, provide a more detailed and cohesive question. The existence or non -existence of various early middle eastern tribes has no bearing on whether god exists or not. Nor does the Czar of Russia or Hitler.

Your standards for proof seem, unsurprisingly, very low.

PS This discussion is entirely off topic for the Cre/evo forum, if you want to pursue it, move it to GA.

 

[Chalnoth]

NO, it does not. The Bible is full of all the mistake men have made---even the godly ones. Study the Bible and not feminist magazines..... You will find it so much more fulfilling....

Feminist magazines? I've never read a feminist magazine. I've merely read the Bible to come to this conclusion. And God is portrayed as a man with great power and authority. Why don't you read the Bible?

 

[thaumaturgy]

The proof that GOD exists is Israel.

No, that would be proof of the British and the Balfour Declaration.

If you don't understand this concept, then perhaps you could tell me where have all the Canaanites and Hittites gone.

Murdered by the Israelites on God's command?

In actuality, if I recall correctly, the archaeological evidence doesn't even support a mass influx of Israelites but rather a gradual displacement of lowlands cities of Caananite populations by highlands tribes who later on coalesced into an Israelite Identity. There may have never been a "united Israel" under David and Solomon. Judah took in the refugees from the Assyrian overrunning of the northern country of Israel which was far more powerful and important under the Omrides.

The story the Bible gives isn't as clear-cut as one would wish for.

Granted I, too, feel for the plight of Israel and the politics of hatred the Arab countries around them are engaging in. And I feel bad that Jews throughout history have been subjected to the most irrational hatred imaginable, but often times that hatred in the West has been largely at the hands of Good Christians.

-t.

 

[SandCrab]

Thread will remain closed permanently due to too many rule violations