What if you seek and don't find?

[Atheos canadensis]

Does the rest of the list follow the accepted science in order in evolutionary history. I don't know, I am actually curious.

Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooope.

Just kidding. But seriously, the order of creation definitely does not match the fossil record. You'll note that seed plants and fruit trees show up on day 3. This doesn't fit with Once's claim that the Bible describes the first life appearing in the sea. According the the fossil record, seed plants and angiosperms (fruit trees) didn't show up for a few tens or hundreds of millions of years (respectively) after the Cambrian.

You'll note also that birds are supposedly created on the fifth day whereas terrestrial animals didn't appear until the sixth day. But of course birds are evolved from terrestrial animals (dinosaurs) so this doesn't really make sense. Plus terrestrial animals showed up long before fruit trees, contrary to what the bible describes, so there's that too.

I don't think it is necessary at this point to go through Genesis organism by organism to see that the biblical account of the order in which life arose on Earth does not align with the rock record.

 

[AV1611VET]

Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooope.

-- That's funny.

 

[Davian]

To Davian and Once,

I am going to take a shot at pinpointing where the two of you seem to be talking past each other... You are other free to jump down my throat of I am wrong

You both seem to agree that beliefs are formed on the basis of evidence.

I think where we are getting caught up is in the analogies. We all know we are really talking about belief in God and not about green apples!

As the subject is belief, that is irrelevant. We could use Santa, for all that matters.

So Once looks at the universe and sees clear and obvious evidence that her God exists. Davian looks at the same evidence and does not see evidence of any God.

Yo be clear, I would consider my position one of ignosticism; define what you mean by "God". For the moment, we are putting the existence of her god aside, and just evaluating her theology.

So when Davian asks, if beliefs are based in evidence and I see no convincing evidence of a God existing, how can I be held morally responsible for my lack of belief, he is saying "I am not seeing evidence and then choosing to not believe despite having seen it, I am saying I really don't see any".

Precisely.

One the other hand Once sees the evidence as obvious when she looks at the universe so she is saying, the only way to see the evidence of the u inverse and still not believe, is to make a conscious choice not to believe even though the evidence is there and clear.

Does this seem accurate?

Yes, but the underlying factor here is Once's insistence that her theology is based on a sense of ultimate justice.

She has conceded that serial killers and worse can go to heaven. No justice there, it would seem.

She then says that we will held accountable for what we believe. Now, if we are not in [conscious] control of what we believe, that would make her theology morally bankrupt.

She asked for evidence for this claim that we are unable to control - to choose - what we believe. While being painfully evasive about it, she is demonstrating to herself that she is not capable of making such a choice.

I am curious to see if she acknowledges it.

 

[Davian]

Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooope.

lol.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To Davian and Once,

I am going to take a shot at pinpointing where the two of you seem to be talking past each other... You are other free to jump down my throat of I am wrong

You both seem to agree that beliefs are formed on the basis of evidence. I think where we are getting caught up is in the analogies. We all know we are really talking about belief in God and not about green apples! So Once looks at the universe and sees clear and obvious evidence that her God exists. Davian looks at the same evidence and does not see evidence of any God. So when Davian asks, if beliefs are based in evidence and I see no convincing evidence of a God existing, how can I be held morally responsible for my lack of belief, he is saying "I am not seeing evidence and then choosing to not believe despite having seen it, I am saying I really don't see any".
One the other hand Once sees the evidence as obvious when she looks at the universe so she is saying, the only way to see the evidence of the u inverse and still not believe, is to make a conscious choice not to believe even though the evidence is there and clear.

Does this seem accurate?

So Davian has spoken for himself. Now I am saying that we are both looking at the same evidence as you have pointed out but it is in the interpretation of the evidence where the problem arises. We can't discount spiritual contexts if we are discussing the concept of a supernatural Being. In my theology, it is due to satan blinding people to the spiritual evidence of the world due to people choosing to believe something other than the truth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As the subject is belief, that is irrelevant. We could use Santa, for all that matters.

But it does matter because we are suppose to be seeking truth and the context of the conversation is about the Christian God.

Yes, but the underlying factor here is Once's insistence that her theology is based on a sense of ultimate justice.

My theology is not based on a sense of ultimate justice but of ultimate mercy.

She has conceded that serial killers and worse can go to heaven. No justice there, it would seem.

This is a case in which I was just pointing out. I clearly responded with so much more than a serial killer being allowed in heaven. You dismiss everything else and just claim that I am saying that all sorts of evil people can get into heaven, without the other part of my explanation. This seems like a clear example of cherry picking my response to fit into your worldview. You seem to ignore or dismiss the concept of mercy, repentance and the unlikelihood of someone of such a nature would in actuality repent of their sins and accept Christ as their savior. The mercy is that if they truly would, they could be saved and go to heaven. There is no one good enough to get to heaven on their own and no one bad enough that God denies His mercy and gift for eternal life.

She then says that we will held accountable for what we believe. Now, if we are not in [conscious] control of what we believe, that would make her theology morally bankrupt.

You haven't shown that we are not in conscious control of what we believe. If we can truly change our mind, we are in control.

She asked for evidence for this claim that we are unable to control - to choose - what we believe. While being painfully evasive about it, she is demonstrating to herself that she is not capable of making such a choice.

You are equating control...without reason. That is not the same thing. We can not believe anything without reason. That means our reasoning allows us to actually chose what we do believe.

 

[Athée]

You seem to ignore or dismiss the concept of mercy, repentance and the unlikelihood of someone of such a nature would in actuality repent of their sins and accept Christ as their savior.

It seems to me like you hold two ideas in tension here. On one hand you say that God is so merciful that he can have mercy on absolutely anyone (if they believe), on the other you also seem uncomfortable with the idea of serial killers getting in to heaven. I'm not sure your claim that it is unlikely such a person would accept Jesus is biblically based. Do you have any support for that position or is it more a hope?

You haven't shown that we are not in conscious control of what we believe. If we can truly change our mind, we are in control.

You say we have not made the case in your opinion. Could you please address my earlier attempt at making it with my example of the office building. If we really can choose beliefs consciously then you should have no trouble jumping, but I will let you explain

I think the last sentence there is telling. Of we can change our mind we are in control. The point we are making is that we are not in control. You can change your mind on a decision but a belief is based on the evidence for it. You are either convinced by the evidence or you are not. There is no choice involved.

You are equating control...without reason. That is not the same thing. We can not believe anything without reason. That means our reasoning allows us to actually chose what we do believe.

It seems to me this might be an equivocation. Let me rewrite those sentences to show you what I mean.
We can not believe anything without having evidence for it, that means our ability to interpret evidence allows us to choose which belief we hold.

I think this is true in the cases where the evidence is uncertain, where it is split and could go either way. But I would argue that genuinely ambiguous instances like this are very very rare. In most cases the evidence will convinced you of one position or another.

A few other questions.
It seems that you believe that
1) we form our belief by interaction with the evidence for that belief
2) Satan exists and is deliberately misleading us into false beliefs
3) God exists, created Satan and allows him to deceive us
4) we will be held eternally responsible for our beliefs
Is that right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooope.

Just kidding. But seriously, the order of creation definitely does not match the fossil record. You'll note that seed plants and fruit trees show up on day 3. This doesn't fit with Once's claim that the Bible describes the first life appearing in the sea. According the the fossil record, seed plants and angiosperms (fruit trees) didn't show up for a few tens or hundreds of millions of years (respectively) after the Cambrian.

You'll note also that birds are supposedly created on the fifth day whereas terrestrial animals didn't appear until the sixth day. But of course birds are evolved from terrestrial animals (dinosaurs) so this doesn't really make sense. Plus terrestrial animals showed up long before fruit trees, contrary to what the bible describes, so there's that too.

I don't think it is necessary at this point to go through Genesis organism by organism to see that the biblical account of the order in which life arose on Earth does not align with the rock record.

Ok. I have some questions about what you just presented.
1. Have you ever been aware of the time line of any appearance of some sort of life being moved back in time millions of years?
2. Do you know of any other Creation Narrative that has a detailed list of the sequence of life appearing on earth?
3. What evidence do you feel compels you to believe that the sequence in the Bible can't possibly be accurate?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It seems to me like you hold two ideas in tension here. On one hand you say that God is so merciful that he can have mercy on absolutely anyone (if they believe), on the other you also seem uncomfortable with the idea of serial killers getting in to heaven. I'm not sure your claim that it is unlikely such a person would accept Jesus is biblically based. Do you have any support for that position or is it more a hope?

Serial killers have a very different mindset, obviously and thankfully. They don't hold life to be of any great value except perhaps their own. If they did, they wouldn't kill people. With this kind of mindset and following evil, they are so blinded to their own evil that repentance seems rather unlikely. I could be wrong, but there is Scripture that supports that Matthew 13:15-16 For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them. “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

You say we have not made the case in your opinion. Could you please address my earlier attempt at making it with my example of the office building. If we really can choose beliefs consciously then you should have no trouble jumping, but I will let you explain

Can you post that again, I couldn't find it by scrolling back.

I think the last sentence there is telling. Of we can change our mind we are in control. The point we are making is that we are not in control. You can change your mind on a decision but a belief is based on the evidence for it. You are either convinced by the evidence or you are not. There is no choice involved.

That is not true. If I claim that the evidence of design is in all life forms and that it supports life being designed, you will choose not to believe that is true and will make a counter claim that fits within your belief system. Same evidence different interpretation. It is in the interpretation of the evidence where choice can be seen.

It seems to me this might be an equivocation. Let me rewrite those sentences to show you what I mean.
We can not believe anything without having evidence for it, that means our ability to interpret evidence allows us to choose which belief we hold.

Exactly. It is the interpretation of the evidence which allows us to choose which belief we will accept.

I think this is true in the cases where the evidence is uncertain, where it is split and could go either way. But I would argue that genuinely ambiguous instances like this are very very rare. In most cases the evidence will convinced you of one position or another.

The evidence will be filtered through your own worldview. The evidence is there but it is our choice how we interpret that evidence.

A few other questions.
It seems that you believe that
1) we form our belief by interaction with the evidence for that belief
2) Satan exists and is deliberately misleading us into false beliefs
3) God exists, created Satan and allows him to deceive us
4) we will be held eternally responsible for our beliefs
Is that right?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. He allows us to allow Satan to deceive us.
4. We are not held eternally responsible for our beliefs. We don't go to hell for any belief. We go to hell by not having our sins paid for by Jesus Christ, obviously to have that happen we have to accept that Jesus did that. So by default, if you don't happen to believe that Jesus Christ died and paid for all sin then you don't have your sin paid for and so your sin is still your own responsibility and you must pay for it yourself.

 

[Athée]

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them

So in this example who has the closed eyes etc? Is it serial killers or just all non believers? If it is every non believer then you still have not made your case that there is something different about a serial killer (from a biblical perspective).

Can you post that again, I couldn't find it by scrolling back.

I can recap it but I don't think I need to. It was a demonstration that we believe based on evidence and not by choice. We seem to agree now that in cases where the evidence is clear, there is no conscious choice to believe or not, rather this occurs in cases where the evidence is inconclusive.

Exactly. It is the interpretation of the evidence which allows us to choose which belief we will accept.

The evidence will be filtered through your own worldview. The evidence is there but it is our choice how we interpret that evidence.

I agree that evidence is filtered through world view, but evidence that is truly compelling will cut through that like it did for Paul. Moreover, since world view is mostly a product of culture and circumstances how can we be held accountable for that filter in the first place?

As ways, if I understand you correctly you are saying that the evidence of the universe is unclear, it is not conclusive. If it were
we would have no free will to not believe in God because the evidence would bypass conscious choice and compell us to believe. Does this mean that Romans is wrong what it says all are without excuse? It says that the evidence of the universe should be compelling enough on its own.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. He allows us to allow Satan to deceive us.
4. We are not held eternally responsible for our beliefs. We don't go to hell for any belief. We go to hell by not having our sins paid for by Jesus Christ, obviously to have that happen we have to accept that Jesus did that. So by default, if you don't happen to believe that Jesus Christ died and paid for all sin then you don't have your sin paid for and so your sin is still your own responsibility and you must pay for it yourself.

So to recap:
We don't choose our beliefs except in cases where the evidence is ambiguous.

God allows Satan to confuse us so that the evidence you see clearly is not even ambiguous for us, when we look at the evidence it convinces us that no God exists because we have been decieved.

After allowing Satan to deceive us in such a way that our conscious choice is bypassed, God holds us accountable for our beliefs, the result being eternal punishment.

Is that right?

 

[Athée]

Ok. I have some questions about what you just presented.
1. Have you ever been aware of the time line of any appearance of some sort of life being moved back in time millions of years?
2. Do you know of any other Creation Narrative that has a detailed list of the sequence of life appearing on earth?
3. What evidence do you feel compels you to believe that the sequence in the Bible can't possibly be accurate?

If he can demonstrate that the Bible does not follow the order we observe in the fossil record will you change your belief that God taught the ancient Jews, modern science?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Ok. I have some questions about what you just presented.
1. Have you ever been aware of the time line of any appearance of some sort of life being moved back in time millions of years?
2. Do you know of any other Creation Narrative that has a detailed list of the sequence of life appearing on earth?
3. What evidence do you feel compels you to believe that the sequence in the Bible can't possibly be accurate?

I would prefer to keep my discussion with you all in one place so I will address this post together with my response to your reply to my other post. Hopefully that made sense.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If he can demonstrate that the Bible does not follow the order we observe in the fossil record will you change your belief that God taught the ancient Jews, modern science?

Do you think for even the slightest moment that I am unaware of the fossil record?

 

[Athée]

Do you think for even the slightest moment that I am unaware of the fossil record?

Lol not at all, anyone who can accurately use the various periods (Cambrian etc) in a previous post probably knows her stuff on the fossil record
What I am really asking is that after making the argument that the Bible predicted life from the water (a finding of modern science) , based it seems on sea monsters (single celled sea monsters? ) appearing first in that list you cited, if the rest of the list you cited is shown to not correspond to the fossil record, will you acknowledge that the appearance of sea monsters at the top of the list is not an indication of their being created first. And as such acknowledge that at least I this instance we are not justified in claiming that Yahweh was handing out modern science lessons to ancient peoples.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So in this example who has the closed eyes etc? Is it serial killers or just all non believers? If it is every non believer then you still have not made your case that there is something different about a serial killer (from a biblical perspective).

All unbelievers, but with that we have to remember that many or most unbelievers are moral and caring people. Satan only has a limited availability to them, on the other hand the serial killer is immersed in their evil and very deeply aligned with satan.

I can recap it but I don't think I need to. It was a demonstration that we believe based on evidence and not by choice. We seem to agree now that in cases where the evidence is clear, there is no conscious choice to believe or not, rather this occurs in cases where the evidence is inconclusive.

I understand what you were going for but I wanted to see the exact scenario you presented.

I agree that evidence is filtered through world view, but evidence that is truly compelling will cut through that like it did for Paul. Moreover, since world view is mostly a product of culture and circumstances how can we be held accountable for that filter in the first place?

We know that people have the ability to actually ask questions about their own beliefs and that of others. While culture and circumstance are important factors we see great numbers of people that live in other cultures, cultures for instance that have been completely secular becoming Christians.

As ways, if I understand you correctly you are saying that the evidence of the universe is unclear, it is not conclusive. If it were
we would have no free will to not believe in God because the evidence would bypass conscious choice and compell us to believe. Does this mean that Romans is wrong what it says all are without excuse? It says that the evidence of the universe should be compelling enough on its own.

You are not understanding my position here. I am not saying it is unclear, as with anything God allows us a "way out". We can always chose God or He gives you an out. The evidence is clear, it is how one interprets it that gives us that "way out".

So to recap:
We don't choose our beliefs except in cases where the evidence is ambiguous.

I hope you are clearer here on my position.

God allows Satan to confuse us so that the evidence you see clearly is not even ambiguous for us, when we look at the evidence it convinces us that no God exists because we have been decieved.

No, the theology behind this is that it is clear to all but unbelievers in some way suppress the knowledge.

After allowing Satan to deceive us in such a way that our conscious choice is bypassed, God holds us accountable for our beliefs, the result being eternal punishment.

See above.[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

Lol not at all, anyone who can accurately use the various periods (Cambrian etc) in a previous post probably knows her stuff on the fossil record
What I am really asking is that after making the argument that the Bible predicted life from the water (a finding of modern science) , based it seems on sea monsters (single celled sea monsters? ) appearing first in that list you cited, if the rest of the list you cited is shown to not correspond to the fossil record, will you acknowledge that the appearance of sea monsters at the top of the list is not an indication of their being created first. And as such acknowledge that at least I this instance we are not justified in claiming that Yahweh was handing out modern science lessons to ancient peoples.

Please read it again:

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

As you can see it is an overview of what comes in at this time. It doesn't say God created the great sea-monsters first and then every living creature that creepeth...and so on. This is an overview of a time period that consists of what I have presented above.

 

[Athée]

All unbelievers, but with that we have to remember that many or most unbelievers are moral and caring people. Satan only has a limited availability to them, on the other hand the serial killer is immersed in their evil and very deeply aligned with satan.

Do you have any biblical support for this idea that the amount of sin evident in someone's life corresponds to the amount of spiritual access Satan has to them?

I understand what you were going for but I wanted to see the exact scenario you presented

Sure. We walk to the top of an office building. Standing on the roof you look out over the edge and feel the vertigo, see the tiny cars and people etc. Then I blindfold you and tell you to consciously choose to believe that the building is only 4 inches tall. When you believe that to be true, jump off the edge. Could you jump?

While culture and circumstance are important factors we see great numbers of people that live in other cultures, cultures for instance that have been completely secular becoming Christians.

And we see many Christians becoming atheists...

You are not understanding my position here. I am not saying it is unclear, as with anything God allows us a "way out". We can always chose God or He gives you an out. The evidence is clear, it is how one interprets it that gives us that "way out".

If the evidence was clear, like in the office building example, we work have a way out. As such the evidence must be inconclusive because it were conclusive we would not be able to choose to not believe it, I the same way that we can't choose to believe the building is 4 inches tall.

No, the theology behind this is that it is clear to all but unbelievers in some way suppress the knowledge.

Ah OK I think I see what you are getting at. Do you believe that I actually know God exists but that I am just lying to myself?

 

[Athée]

Please read it again:

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

As you can see it is an overview of what comes in at this time. It doesn't say God created the great sea-monsters first and then every living creature that creepeth...and so on. This is an overview of a time period that consists of what I have presented above.

I did read it and I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is on what basis you are saying that the Bible passage you quoted about sea monsters shows that God was feeding the ancient writers, findings from modern science. Sea life appears first on that list so I assumed that was the basis you were using for saying that the Bible predicted life beginning in the sea. If that is not the case, what are you basing your assertion on that the Bible clearly says life began in the oceans?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you have any biblical support for this idea that the amount of sin evident in someone's life corresponds to the amount of spiritual access Satan has to them?

I think Matthew 17:20 gives us a hint.

Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?" 20And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.21"But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."

Sure. We walk to the top of an office building. Standing on the roof you look out over the edge and feel the vertigo, see the tiny cars and people etc. Then I blindfold you and tell you to consciously choose to believe that the building is only 4 inches tall. When you believe that to be true, jump off the edge. Could you jump?

Thank you. When have I ever claimed that belief is not fastened in evidence and reason? This goes to reason, why would anyone jump? It isn't that we can chose to believe something we know is not true. I know that the building is not only 4 inches tall.

And we see many Christians becoming atheists...

Yes?

If the evidence was clear, like in the office building example, we work have a way out. As such the evidence must be inconclusive because it were conclusive we would not be able to choose to not believe it, I the same way that we can't choose to believe the building is 4 inches tall.

Correct. God will always leave a way out.

Ah OK I think I see what you are getting at. Do you believe that I actually know God exists but that I am just lying to myself?

I haven't a clue. God believes that unbelievers suppress the knowledge, but they earnestly believe that they don't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I did read it and I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is on what basis you are saying that the Bible passage you quoted about sea monsters shows that God was feeding the ancient writers, findings from modern science. Sea life appears first on that list so I assumed that was the basis you were using for saying that the Bible predicted life beginning in the sea. If that is not the case, what are you basing your assertion on that the Bible clearly says life began in the oceans?

What? I am not getting this. God was giving the over view of how and what He created during the Creation. This is the point we are making here. You know full well that evidence in the fossil record changes quite often, new evidence comes to light that moves an appearance of some life form back into time by even hundreds of millions of years. There is no other Creation narrative that even comes close to being represented by scientific findings, but the Christian Narrative fits very very well. That being said, on the points that are not exactly as evidence now shows, we know that new evidence can support the narrative too. For instance, evidence shows that oxygen was present far far before the great oxidation event. Scientists do believe that some form of life had to be present prior to the event to have oxygen levels at where they are in new discoveries.
Can you present anything that would exclude the possibility that we could discover evidence that would support more closely the Biblical Creation Narrative?