In The Beginning.

[OdwinOddball]

GOD is good. GOD is love. GOD is righteous. GOD is perfect. The attibutes of GOD exist because HE is eternal and not because they were bestowed on HIM. They exist because HE IS.

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.

 

[OdwinOddball]

GOD is beyond your expectations of HIM. You must answer to HIM. HE doesn't need to answer to you.

When I can hear that directly FROM him, and not just through humans claiming to speak for him, I might believe it.

 

[OdwinOddball]

GOD is the standard. Everything HE does is good.

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

Thats a pretty twisted definition of good.

 

[thaumaturgy]

GOD is the standard. Everything HE does is good.

See, was that so hard? You have come down firmly on one side of the dilemma. Whatever God does is by definition Good. I am glad you chose a side!

However, you will then have to wonder if God will tell someone that mass murder is "good", and that person must do it because it is what God wants.

Or, if God were to slaughter countless people and cast them into eternal torment it would also have to be "good", by definition.

Clearly you have biblical backing in the Bible for this type of God (he did command Saul to slaughter all those innocent Amalekite women and children, and according to some interpretations God will damn some to eternal punishment).

Oh, by the way, how do you know what is good or evil?

 

[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.

And you are any better? GOD has had to deal with those who oppose HIS plan and HIS followers. Would you want the Jew wiped off the face of the earth? That would be the alternative. Not everyone who says LORD, LORD, are known of GOD.

 

[LittleNipper]

See, was that so hard? You have come down firmly on one side of the dilemma. Whatever God does is by definition Good. I am glad you chose a side!

However, you will then have to wonder if God will tell someone that mass murder is "good", and that person must do it because it is what God wants.

Or, if God were to slaughter countless people and cast them into eternal torment it would also have to be "good", by definition.

Clearly you have biblical backing in the Bible for this type of God (he did command Saul to slaughter all those innocent Amalekite women and children, and according to some interpretations God will damn some to eternal punishment).

Oh, by the way, how do you know what is good or evil?

The Amalekites were innocent of what, how so? GOD defines good. Evil is anything that attempts to go contrary to GOD's will.

 

[us38]

GOD defines good. Evil is anything that attempts to go contrary to GOD's will.

Kind of off-topic, but I'd like to clarify something here. With this statement in mind, do you admit that what is good or evil is more-or-less arbitrary, since it is decided by only what god does?

 

[OdwinOddball]

And you are any better? GOD has had to deal with those who oppose HIS plan and HIS followers. Would you want the Jew wiped off the face of the earth? That would be the alternative. Not everyone who says LORD, LORD, are known of GOD.

Nice non sequitor there. What does the persecution of Jews(most of which has been done by Christians) have to do with anything?

I certainly have not compared myself to a god as you imply, though if you wish to do so, then by all means, compare me to a god. Just make sure you do it in front of a few single ladies.

I am not a follower of your god, so why would my activities have anything to do with my post? Aren't you Christians supposed to lead by example? If so, then stop being mean and prejudiced and practice this "love" you claim your god is all about.

 

[Chalnoth]

The Amalekites were innocent of what, how so? GOD defines good. Evil is anything that attempts to go contrary to GOD's will.

Even the young children? God ordered them killed as well, after all. Though many of them would most assuredly not yet have had any chance to go contrary to God's will, even assuming the rather backward Old Testament morality.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The Amalekites were innocent of what, how so? GOD defines good. Evil is anything that attempts to go contrary to GOD's will.

I am glad that you are being philosophically consistent, but remember, we are talking CHILDREN and FARM ANIMALS here. God wanted them ALL dead. And he wanted it done in revenge for Amalekite attacks on the Israelites. So God wanted people who were innocent of a crime punished for that crime.

No matter how you slice it, you are defending mass slaughter of innocents labled as "good".

Now, take it another step and assume, say, 19 ultra-religious young men decided that God would be OK with it, if they were to kill infidels and opted to crash planes into a few buildings. Remember, God is "OK" with that. Can you prove them wrong? How can YOU, Little Nipper, tell them they are acting EVILLY?

What if a madman thinks he hears the voice of God telling him to torture and kill an infant. How can you talk him out of it? You surely can't say it is "evil" because this guy says God is telling him to do it. Besides God told Abraham to murder his own son and only opted out of the command at the last minute! Who are YOU to gainsay the word of God?

Sorry, but you are now bereft of morality.

Want to go for "God does what is good because it's good" or "Whatever God does is good by definition"?

Either way, how will you know what to do unless God whispers audibly in your ear or sends you a fax?

 

[FishFace]

Indeed. You've now left yourself unable to convince anyone that what you say is moral, because all you have is "God told me so," which is just as good as anyone else saying "<DEITY> told me so."

So on the one hand, you have to claim that mass murder of innocents is fine (as long as your god commands it) but on the other, you have to say it's NOT fine, (if your god doesn't command it) yet the latter cannot be intrinsically wrong - innocent is sometimes right, apparently. And you don't provide any way of distinguishing these situations - how do I tell whether you are telling the truth, or Mr Muslim is telling the truth?

 

[FoeHammer]

Incorrect.

I can refute evidence and still not know. It's not usual for someone to exemplify this fallacy quite so well. If you refuted evolution, somehow, right now, you would not be justified in concluding your god. You can still only conclude "I don't know," until you get some evidence for your position.

I've got evidence, scripture.

They mean the same thing. "I eat nothing" does not mean, "I eat a thing that is nothing," it means "I do not eat anything." Perhaps you should stop quibbling over insignificant grammatical nuances.

Perjaps you could try to be a little clearer.

Hold it there, then. If that is your evidence for your beliefs, you have to provide evidence that that is a reliable source of information. Why should I take the word of some guys who lived a few thousand years ago over modern science - why should I take their flawed philosophy over our more enlightened systems? More practically, why should I take their word over the word of any of the other religions'?

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.

Of course not, that would be stupid. But it is a well known and demonstrable fact that most people of religion X were either brought up by people of religion X, or lived where there are lots of people of religion X. Surely you don't deny this?

The post should have been clearer.

Both of mine are, but anecdotes are not evidence.

I wasn't offering it as evidence.

Of course you say that. But the fact that you have fallen for the "truths" of fundamentalism (not those of Christianity, necessarily) speaks to the contrary.

I get The Truth from scripture.

FoeHammer.

 

[Chalnoth]

I've got evidence, scripture.

That's no more evidence than any other book is.

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.The post should have been clearer.

Why would you place that requirement upon evidence?

I get The Truth from scripture.

And what criteria have you used to discover that scripture is Truth? Would it not be better to use that criteria directly to arrive at Truth instead?

 

[FoeHammer]

No, on the contrary. The conclusions of science rest on the evidence we have. No assumption about the existence or non-existence of god is ever made in science. because gods being a supernatural phenomena are outside the realm of science. This is why many Christians accept the ToE & big bang theory as the best explanations we have for how life & the universe started respectively.

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.

Foe, some very serious advice here. I know you're not going to listen, but I will say it anyway.

Learn what it is you oppose before you spout off nonsense like the above quote. Your statements show that you know almost nothing about science. Yet, regardless of this you feel it is ok for you to conclude that science is wrong. This is called argument from ignorance. Its the sign of a very weak argument and it does nothing to further your position, instead it makes you look like a fool.

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.
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.
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.

Even if you still end up disagreeing, at least if you could speak intelligently on the subject, and present arguments based on actual knowledge and not just your assumptions and opinions.

As far as the origin of the universe and life is concerned opinions and assumptions is all anyone's got.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

GOD is the standard. Everything HE does is good.

Amen to that brother.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

When I can hear that directly FROM him, and not just through humans claiming to speak for him, I might believe it.

You will hear it from Him (we all will) but by then it may be too late.

FoeHammer.

 

[Chalnoth]

As far as the origin of the universe and life is concerned opinions and assumptions is all anyone's got.

Or we could just look at the earliest stages of the universe that we can see and discover what we can infer from that.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

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.

Is it an incorrect assumption that if we find fossilized specimens of a species that at one point there were other animals just like it who did reproduce?

As evidence gets better the tree of life becomes more and more accurate. It is very rare to suppose that any found species is directly ancestoral to another, what is more likely to be the case is that the ancestor was at the very least closely related to the species found. Understand that fossilization is so rare that it is almost never assumed by scientists that THE direct ancestor is the one found.

Relatedness is not based upon fossil evidence alone either. Genetics is a fairly definitive method of establishing relatedness, but there is other evidence that is even stronger.
Molecular biology is making leaps and bounds in the categorization of life. Looking at the mutation rate of proteins scientists can actually get a date for when two individuals had a common ancestor. Since any individual has lots of proteins, these dates can be reliably confirmed. This is partly based on the fact that a vast majority of mutations are benign and thus accumulate. The more similar your proteins, the fewer mutations since you had the same protein sequence, the more closely related you are. The molecular biological evidence is the strongest evidence for the relatedness of any two species, and of common ancestory.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

To sum up: relatedness is based on a whole lot more than pure speculation and direct ancestors and decendants are rarely known.

 

[us38]

What I am saying is that science does not know the answers to what it wasn't there to witness and cannot reproduce.

Wrong. Everything that happens leaves evidence. That evidence can only point to what happened. To say that science is always wrong just because we're dealing with evidence after the fact is absurd.

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.

I find it incredibly ironic that you are either unwilling or unable to apply this standard to yourself.

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.

But that does shoot holes in your "God is required for life" argument.

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.

You might have an arguement if science actually was anti-god. The only reason it is is because you (erroneously) intepret Genesis literally. Not to mention that it's not the atheist's fault that the science agrees with him.

Besides, you're missing the point that it's not just evolution that disagrees with creation; it's cosmology, geology, astrophysics, and just about every other branch of science that disagrees with you.

[quoteAs far as the origin of the universe and life is concerned opinions and assumptions is all anyone's got.[/quote]

How do you not realize that god is just another assumption?

You will hear it from Him (we all will) but by then it may be too late.

So you've proven god exists? And you know about what it does? Interesting. I'd like to know how you came to these conclusions.