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.Does God need to micromanage everything? I think He is much more intelligent than that.
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.
If you have read this far without storming off I applaud you and would love to hear your thoughts or arguments on the mater. though I probably have heard them all and countered them all at one point.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Of course, different problems have different logical solutions. How does that make your point?
ken: Logic is subjective; not objective.
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?Ed1wolf said: ↑
Of course not. But they unconsciously lived according to them, at least the basic ones like that one. Only humans eventually learned and came to realize that logic is how we think and the universe operates.
ken: Just because the law is logical, doesn't mean it is a law of logic.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
The rules of logic are non-physical, so there is no one location where they exist. They exist throughout the universe and are in operation throughout. Similar to the laws of physics, the laws are non-physical but operate and control physical entities.
ken: Logic only exist in the context of human thought. If humans ceased to exist; so would logic.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, if you believe two different things that contradict each other then your statement and beliefs are meaningless. For example, If you say I hate you and I love you. That statement is meaningless. Or if you say I love guns and I hate guns. That is also a meaningless statement.
ken: Subjective does not mean you can believe things that contradict, or believe whatever you choose to believe. Look up the definition of Subjective.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because subjective things cannot be proven, they are equal. How can you prove a subjective belief?
Just because some beliefs are unable to be proven does not make them equal. Perhaps they are equal to you, but not everybody else.
No, the question is about choosing what is real and objective and true. If you want to choose those things then you should only believe things that can be proven not with certainty but with reasonable evidence for its existence.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, those beliefs are not subjective they can be proven because they are based on objective facts such as the law of gravity. See my post above.
ken: That question was not about subjective/objective; it was about the ability to choose what you believe. Care to try again?
[quote[Ed1wolf said: ↑
If God exists objectively then so do all of His characteristics including His moral character upon which Christian morality is based. That is why only Christian morality has an objective foundation.
ken: No; christian morality is subjectively based on God’s characteristics. As I pointed out before, if morality is objective, then God does not own morality; he is subjective to morality the same as you and I.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
It is still based on His character but it has been distorted by our sin. It is like looking in a mirror partially covered by condensation. You can see partially what you look like but it is distorted.
ken: Apparently just being based on his moral character wasn’t good enough; he should have made us equal to his moral character; that way we wouldn't have sinned
No, you are confusing microevolution with macroevolution, I do not deny that microevolution occurs, the problem is the historical extrapolation that relatively simple adaptations such as resistance to antibiotics can eventually result in huge morphological changes such as bacteria changing into amoeba type organisms, ie Macroevolution.
Such things have never been empirically observed.
And the fossil record shows mostly organisms appearing suddenly with few or no precursors and then simply disappearing when the ecosystems change and being replaced again by fully formed organisms designed to handle the new ecosystem with no precursor forms.
No, that is only recent irrational anti-theistic development.
Throughout most of the history of science most scientists were either Christians or deists and came up with some of our greatest discoveries.
Acknowledging a creator actually gives science a rational foundation because without Him you have no basis for believing in logic, an objective reality, and orderly laws governing an intelligible universe.
Such things are absolutely necessary to even DO science.
And none of those things can come about through impersonal processes because only intelligent personal beings can use logic and create laws and intelligibility so that other intelligent personal beings can make discoveries.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 pointI 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.
Provide a definition of “omni” that says one can exist, but not multiple.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.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it looked like plain agreement to me unless you are being obtuse.
ken: Quote me when I said I agreed with you; otherwise I will assume you just misunderstood me.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Fraid so, they compete for ecological niches. Mutants may be born but if their mutation does not help outcompete the existing organism in the niche, then the mutants will die out. This is evolution 101. Did you ever take a course on evolutionary biology?
ken: In the scenario, nothing dies; remember? So in the context of this discussion, nothing outcompetes existing organisms because everything lives!
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
I never said that it would prevent the birth of mutants but if those mutants dont outcompete the organism in their ecological niche then they will die out.
ken: No; in this scenario they won’t die out because NOTHING DIES remember? So if you are going to agree that random mutants will still be born where there is no death, will you admit your claim that evolution requires death was wrong?
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, generally when I use the term evolution, I am referring to the standard Darwinian model where one genus supposedly morphs into another.
ken: 95% of what Darwin studied was bacteria, virus, and germs. So if you want to refer to the standard darwinian model, perhaps you should spend more time discussing 95% of his studies and less time on the 5% of his studies. Darwin was over 100 years ago! He didn’t discover Evolution; he just published it for peer review. Why don’t you mention what people of today are saying about it?
Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am referring to populations of an organism not an individual. Some populations of animals adapt to environmental conditions such as the bacteria you posted about,
ken: Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else; I didn’t post about bacteria adapting to environments and remaining the same
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
but they remain the same species of bacteria, this not evolution as Darwin understood it. This is adaptation.
ken: When the genetic structure remains the same, NOBODY calls that evolution! As I said before, Evolution is when the genetic structure changes.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
He was our representative so he was acting on our behalf.
ken: So God chose Adam and Eve as our representatives knowing they would fail? How fair is that? We should have had the chance to represent ourselves.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but this type of universe and this type of process may be the only way to destroy evil forever.
ken: If evil cannot exist in Heaven, it need not exist on Earth either.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
True and your point is?
ken: My point is; if God is the one providing punishment or reward, he cannot be the one to provide freewill. We have freewill, it just doesn't come from God.
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.You are trying to argue that nature makes God unnecessary, but what is nature but a system created by God?
It would make just as much sense to argue that the industrial robots used to assemble cars mean that humans don't exist.
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.Sorry I dont have time to go back and find it. Explain yourself.
None of that matters; as long as random mutants are born, you have evolution.No, the resources are limited so there is still competition over resources even space if nothing dies. Eventually there is no more space for the mutants, whether they die or not.
The examples I gave in post# 945, the genetic structure changed; thus evolution not adaption.Yes you did, read your post number 945. In your article you posted about evolution in medicine it refers to bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.
Yes! When the genetic structure changes, even though they are still bacteria, evolution has still taken place.No, their genetic structure DOES change and yet they are still bacteria.
If they were perfect, they wouldn’t have failed. He should have made us perfect so we could represent ourselves.He was the perfect representative chosen by our perfect Creator and Judge. Sounds fair to me.
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?But all the beings in heaven are spiritually mature, that is not the case on earth. Humans on earth have to go thru the teaching and learning process (living a life following Christ) to become spiritually mature enough and then they can enter heaven. This is what eventually destroys evil forever. Because those who choose not to go thru the process keep evil alive on earth and when they die are not allowed in heaven.
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.
Because God's intervention in nature is, for the most part, undetectable by science. And that makes sense, as God is not subject to the laws of science.
All mutations including beneficial ones, result in a overall loss of genetic information. Thereby preventing large morphological changes.What mechanism(s) prevent small changes accumulating into a large change.
Ok, Please provide an example of a macroevolutionary change that was empirically observed.g2: Sure they have, thousands of times.
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.g2: Why do you think that is? Could it be due to the rarity of fossilisation?
g2: There's no such thing as a non "fully formed" organism, although there are PLENTY of examples in the fossil record of species that exhibit 'mosaic' traits descended from their ancestral species.
Spinoza was not a scientist. Methodological naturalism did not take over science until the late 19th century.ed: No, that is only recent irrational anti-theistic development.
g2: If by recent, you mean since the 1700s, then yes. Spinoza and Hutton both helped develop a natural philosophy that neither invoked or required the existence of deities, which was later developed into methodological naturalism, via the path of uniformitarianism.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
ed: Throughout most of the history of science most scientists were either Christians or deists and came up with some of our greatest discoveries.
g2: Well, I disagree. I think there were plenty of non-Christian and non-deist scientists who came up with many of the greatest discoveries. I think you're giving rather short shrift to the contributions of the Greeks, Romans, Mesopotamians, Indians, Arabs, Chinese, Egyptians and other non-Western, pre-Enlightenment discoveries.
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.g2: Yes, I acknowledge that the Christian west did end up making the lion's share of recent discoveries - mostly because of the development of the 'natural sciences' from the earlier traditions of 'natural philosophy'.
Yes, and I have explained why Christianity inspired modern science. Read Loren Eisley's "Darwins Century". Even he admitted it, as an unbeliever.g2: In addition, you could just lose the word scientist there and replace it with person (or theist) and it wouldn't change anything. The majority of discoveries were made by Christians or deists, because it was Christians or deists that were the majority of scientists.
How do you know that there is a correlation between what you are observing and what is really there?Ed1wolf said: ↑
Acknowledging a creator actually gives science a rational foundation because without Him you have no basis for believing in logic, an objective reality, and orderly laws governing an intelligible universe.
g2: I don't. They're axiomatic assumptions inductively derived from observation of reality. However, they're also necessary.
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.g2: So, I have plenty of reason to believe that reality exists, the laws of thought apply within it, and that there are no dramatic changes in the underpinnings of reality from one moment to the next. Because that's all that I experience.
However, if I supposed that the universe was produced by an entity that can create something from nothing, an entity that could create and abrogate the laws of time and space, an entity that monkeyed around directly with the fates of humans, THEN I would have no basis for believing any of the above. Because that entity could do any thing at any time for any reason. So nothing could be trusted.
Exactly, see above.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Such things are absolutely necessary to even DO science.
g2: "If the stone, for example, which fell today, were to rise again tomorrow, there would be an end of natural philosophy, our principles would fail, and we would no longer investigate the rules of nature from our observations." Hutton, J (1795). Theory of the Earth with Proofs and Illustrations
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."Ed1wolf said: ↑
And none of those things can come about through impersonal processes because only intelligent personal beings can use logic and create laws and intelligibility so that other intelligent personal beings can make discoveries.
g2: This is your claim (and a lovely little tautology it is too, don't think I didn't notice). Now, kindly support it with evidence.
mark passio says that you can understand if a peoples are moral or not by the condition of being the society is like. he says that morality is objective and breaking the natural law leads to slavery.
the natural law is basically the golden rule or something like:
don't murder/assault
don't steal
don't rape
don't coerce
don't trespass
Ok, but that is still not subjective. One person may be objectively faster, smarter, slower, etc.Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.
ken: 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.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.
ken: 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.
ken: As far as the moon, I asked you where was this logic, and you still haven’t given me an answer.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.
ken: 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.
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?Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.
ken: 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
For example, there is only one ALL knowledge, there are not multiple all knowledges so only one being can have all knowledge.Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.
ken: Provide a definition of “omni” that says one can exist, but not multiple.
Everything you listed, there are situations where it is not wrong to do those things. Don't cha think that makes it subjective
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.Ok, but that is still not subjective. One person may be objectively faster, smarter, slower, etc.
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.No, I didn't say dinosaurs can reason, I said they operate according to the laws of logic even when no humans existed. Two T. Rexes cannot occupy the same space, at the same time, or in the same relationship. IOW the law of non-contradiction was valid 65 mya just like today when humans exist. So plainly logic existed before human minds did.
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.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?
How do you know there is only one ALL knowledge?For example, there is only one ALL knowledge, there are not multiple all knowledges so only one being can have all knowledge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?