Taking Questions on the Creation

The author is dead.

 

Yeah. And there is no Author.

 

Fool.

 

You just moved the problem one step "up" so to speak.

How then would A & E KNOW that it was wrong to disobey G then? The conclusion is still they are not to blame. God may have said "NO!", but it still couldn't have been wrong of them to do what they did.

Therefore original sin is meaningless, and I think you can understand the consequences of THAT.
Either the genesis is metaphorical OR christianity is meaningless.

You're "slippery" guy AV, but I finally *got* you.

*dances the winning dance*

Ath.

 

IOW, you worship a book above all other things.

That's got to be the single most pathetic ideology I've ever heard.

 

Is it ok in your mind that people like yourself who reject all modern science (that is, till you need it) actually turn people like me off of Christianity? I think we can both assume that men like Ken Miller are much smarter than you or I and yet he manages to reconcile the bible and science. Rejection of reality makes me look at Christians like yourself as either dishonest or mentally ill (I am not saying that to insult you in the least).

 

Thank you. At least it's an answer.

Not that it "means" anything. You could make whatever claim you like and just back it up this way.

But it is an answer.

You are expressing, as you said you would, your "opinion". Nothing more.

Now, can I ask what you actually wanted to do with the OP? Did you want to provide any "meaning" to your opinion?

Why didn't you start the OP with:

"Ask me any question and I will tell you whatever it is I feel."

 

So that's your religion! You are "God's Dog".

That makes sense. Most people treat their dogs well if they are fundamentally good.

But sometimes God used his dogs like "hunting dogs". 1 Samuel 15:3

 

AV will use "physical evidence" when it serves him. I suspect he relies on physical evidence every single day of his life. I bet he holds the handrail while going up stairs, I bet he doesn't walk of cliffs, and I bet he is more than happy to know that statistically living here in the U.S. he's able to enjoy a ridiculously safe water and food supply, all largely due to science and "physical evidence".

I bet AV has had innoculations and goes to regular modern day doctors.

He uses a computer, an impossibility without "physical evidence" which laid the foundation for its development.

He rejects science and physical evidence when it suits him.

But what he doesn't realize is: that isn't how the machine works. You can't just "reject" a little bit of reality when it suits you in hopes of saving parts you like.

What I find amazing about people like AV is they would have me believe that they can pick and choose which things require "evidence" and which things are true despite the evidence.

If evidence is of no value, then how does he function in the world?

As for science, well, that's a great topic. You see, AV claims along with his associates degree and >170 IQ to be quite a chess player. That is something that requires "strategy". Which means one must be able to put together a string of events moving forward in time based on some presumable set of possibilities.

What AV doesn't seem to realize about science is; it too must follow specific rules of evidence. He wants to talk about "creation" in regards to what it says in Genesis 1.

Well, Genesis 1 has events occuring in the wrong order as shown by physical evidence. So AV rejects the physical in this particular part of reality and places a book of unknown origin above the physical evidence.

That's fine. That is is his perogative. But he must now either choose:

1. He must explain why the evidence in this case is flawed using superior evidence.

2. Reject all physical evidence.

To reject the uniformitarianist approach to geologic history of the earth he will have to reject all of physics and chemistry. Not just the weird quantum stuff, but all of it, even down to "falling bodies", gravity, and concepts like the "Law of Superposition" (basically which states that if object A is on top of object B and there's no reason to believe they were overturned, then A was placed after B. I sit on the chair means the chair was there first, not that I assumed a sitting position in space and the chair was manufactured under me. That's an oversimplification, but the gist of it).

AV has to choose to reject all physical evidence or some. If he rejects some he must provide a reason.

That reason is; he believes a book of unknown and unproven origin is superior to the vastness of the physical evidence.

NOW, imagine for a second that you are on trial for a crime and AV is the judge. There is a mountain of physical evidence that says you are likely not guilty of the crime, you were no where near the crime scene. But AV has found a piece of paper on which is written "someone you see in front of your desk has committed a crime!" He interprets it to mean you and he will adjudicate you guilty.

That is his judgement, that is his "faith" that the piece of paper is right.

Now, there is just a slight possibility that AV found a confession written by you because you did commit the crime! You are guilty but you are a crafty criminal who hid the evidence.

But the question remains: was AV correct in judging you "guilty" of the crime? Was his reasoning sound?

In science he would be found lacking in judgement. He claims to "know" but in reality he is merely expressing his "feelings".

MAYBE Genesis is correct and accurate as an account of the earth's early history. The evidence would suggest it is incorrect. The vastness of the evidence speaks against its correctness.

Is AV correct in tossing out the vast majority of the evidence to come to his judgement? It is fully within his right to do so.

However, he needs to remember that which he fails to remember all the time: his "wishes" do not translate into "fact" just because they are wishes. He is not capable of the fiat lux.

He is well within his rights to hold his religion superior. But why he comes on a discussion forum and offers to "answer questions" and then immediately grants they are "his opinion" and why he thinks that will be of value to anyone but him is beyond me. I wish he would be internally consistent in reliance on evidence, but he is, after all, only human.

 

Sorry AV but according to my Bhagavad Gita

“Fear not what is not real, never was and never will be. What is real, always was and cannot be destroyed.”

 

Makes perfect sense -- don't be jealous, AV.

 

It's a good thing I don't normally sign my posts, then.

 

Well that wrong because mine holy book says that God is---

" the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness."
Bhagavad Gita