Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, He doesn't need to, but He does to reveal His existence, read Romans 1:20. If Natural selection really worked then that would cover up God's existence. The diversity of living things would not need God, ie therefore God is not needed and therefore probably does not exist.
No, just because you use a tool called logic on different problems does not make it subjective as I demonstrated earlier. You have not demonstrated how that fact makes logic subjective. Try again.
That doesn't make any sense. Do you even know that without the laws of logic you cannot even say that a law is logical or illogical?
No, I proved you wrong twice on that with my example of logic among dinosaurs when no humans existed and how there is logic on the moon, where no humans exist at present. Try again.
That is not what I am saying, I am saying that if you want to believe in something that is objectively real then it cannot be subjective. Or if you want to communicate something that is true, then it cannot contradict itself. So if your morality is subjective then it is not objectively real and is therefore meaningless because people can have the opposite morality if it is subjective and thereby contradicting your morality therefore making your morality objectively meaningless.
I never said God owns morality, I said it is part of who He is and human morality is based on His objective moral character because He made and owns us.
That would have made us God too, He cannot make other Gods. By definition there can only be one omni being, similar to the nonexistence of square circles, it cannot logically exist. Just like He cannot make a rock He cannot lift.
I’m not talking about different problems, I’m talking about the same problem done differently by each person due to their personal strengths and weaknesses.
Logic is simply a way of reasoning. Now if Dinosaurs were capable of reasoning, then there was logic use back then; but you have not proven they were capable of reason, thus you haven't proven the use of logic existed back then. As far as the moon, I asked you where was this logic, and you still haven’t given me an answer.
Going by that logic, if your morality is OBJECTIVE, it is not objectively real and is therefore meaningless because people can and DO have the opposite morality and thereby contradicting your morality therefore making your morality objectively meaningless.
But if morality is objective, it can’t be based on God’s moral character any more than mine or yours because God is subject to morality just as he is to math, or anything else objective. Just like if God said 1+1=3 he would be wrong, for God to say “X” is good when it is objectively bad would mean God were wrong. Objective can’t be based on any thought; not even God’s thought. That’s my point
Provide a definition of “omni” that says one can exist, but not multiple.
No, see above. Also this is a hypothetical situation, in the real world if there is no food, space, water, or etc for an organism because another organism outcompetes them for these things then they die. Some animals even kill and eat their mutants. So yes real life evolution requires death.
No, their genetic structure DOES change and yet they are still bacteria. In fact in most cases they LOSE genetic information and structure when they become resistant thereby making it LESS likely for them to adapt to future changes in their environment and therefore LESS likely to evolve micro or macro.
But that is not what Darwin was saying and doing. He was claiming with his theory of evolution and mechanism of natural selection that the system and, using your analogy, the cars designed and assembled themselves naturally. Sometimes his writings mentioned a deist type creator getting things started but not really like the Christian God, who created a universe that points to His existence.
My point is; I don’t believe evolution requires death; it requires birth. When a random mutant is born, that’s what starts evolution. IOW it’s about birth, not death.
None of that matters; as long as random mutants are born, you have evolution.
The examples I gave in post# 945, the genetic structure changed; thus evolution not adaption.
Yes! When the genetic structure changes, even though they are still bacteria, evolution has still taken place.
If they were perfect, they wouldn’t have failed. He should have made us perfect so we could represent ourselves.
Most Christians realize they never become perfect. This means they are constantly sining on a regular basis until they die. If they never become spiritually mature (sinless) while here on Earth, what makes you think they will all of a sudden become sinless in Heaven?
All mutations including beneficial ones, result in a overall loss of genetic information. Thereby preventing large morphological changes.
Ok, Please provide an example of a macroevolutionary change that was empirically observed.
How come the lack of fossils just happen to almost always occur between genera? And that systematic lack led Stephen J. Gould and others to come up with the punctuated equilibrium theory to account for these systematic gaps, ie, evolution occurring so rapidly no fossils were left behind.
Spinoza was not a scientist. Methodological naturalism did not take over science until the late 19th century.
While they did come up with great isolated discoveries but it was Christians that came up with modern science, ie, the ongoing self correcting investigation of nature.
Yes, but also because as Kepler said to "think God's thoughts after Him." Also only Christianity taught that the universe operated according to rational laws created by a rational creator.
Yes, and I have explained why Christianity inspired modern science. Read Loren Eisley's "Darwins Century". Even he admitted it, as an unbeliever.
How do you know that there is a correlation between what you are observing and what is really there?
No, God has stated that He operates the universe according to regular laws of physics, read Jeremiah 33:25. No other god has stated that. That is why other cultures or religions never came up with modern science.
Exactly, see above.
It has been empirically observed throughout human experience. If you can provide an example where impersonal processes produced laws and intelligibility, I am all ears. As Einstein said "laws imply a lawgiver."
Ok, but that is still not subjective. One person may be objectively faster, smarter, slower, etc.
No, again you are misunderstanding what objective and subjective mean. God's moral character exists outside of human minds so therefore is objective to humans. Human morality is subjective because they only exist in other humans minds. Now do you understand?
For example, there is only one ALL knowledge, there are not multiple all knowledges so only one being can have all knowledge.
Their ability may be objective, but the question at hand is about the most logical way to get from point A to point B, and because the answer varies from person to person depending on their ability; the answer is not objective.
So you see the law of non-contradiction as a law of logic? I agree logic can be applied to that law, but then logic can be applied to laws of science, physics, even math! Do you see those as laws of logic as well? Perhaps this is something we will have to agree to disagree on.
Humans have nothing to do with this, we’re talking about Morality and God. If morality is objective, that means it applies to God the same way as anything else. Just because God and humans are different, or God and animals are different, or God and (fill in the blank) are different, doesn’t mean an exception can be made for God that aren’t made for everything else.
How do you know there is only one ALL knowledge?
