What if you seek and don't find?

[Davian]

Ok.

So what are you saying.

Scroll back.

I didn't allude to anything and I don't need access to anything when discussing facts we know about our universe.

Post #931, you said: "If I couldn't see how unlikely our existence in the universe seems to be".

This alludes to probabilities, which you cannot establish without access to other universes.

It is begging the question.

How so?

How do you know the process necessitated an oxygen-free environment?

As my children approached the ages where they might ask these 'big' questions, I sought to inform myself, as least to the laymen's level of understanding on this subject.

To that effect, I googled to here: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here: The Origins of Life | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Here: Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Lifes Origins - YouTube

and I listened to this lecture series:

The Great Courses - Origins of Life

01 The Grand Question of Life's Origins.mp3
02 The Historical Setting of Origins Research.mp3
03 What Is Life.mp3
04 Is There Life on Mars.mp3
05 Earth's Oldest Fossils.mp3
06 Fossil Isotopes.mp3
07 Molecular Biosignatures.mp3
08 Emergence.mp3
09 The Miller-Urey Experiment.mp3
10 Life from the Bottom of the Sea.mp3
11 The Deep, Hot Biosphere.mp3
12 Experiments at High Pressure.mp3
13 More Experiments Under Pressure.mp3
14 Deep Space Dust, Molten Rock, and Zeolite.mp3
15 Macromolecules and the Tree of Life.mp3
16 Lipids and Membrane Self-Organization.mp3
17 Life on Clay, Clay as Life.mp3
18 Life's Curious Handedness.mp3
19 Self-Replicating Molecular Systems.mp3
20 Gunter Wachtershauser's Grand Hypothesis.mp3
21 The RNA World.mp3
22 The Pre-RNA World.mp3
23 Natural Selection and Competition.mp3
24 Three Scenarios for the Origin of Life.mp3

Interesting stuff. It seems to come down to not having the precise conditions under which these processes began.

I believe that I have presented this information to you before, in a thread that was since deleted, have I not?

I've not claimed that if a particular scientific hypothesis has not been validated that it provides support for God.

You said "The fact that life has not EVER been shown to arise by chemical processes supports my position more than if we could see life arising from chemical processes over and over again."

Did you not?

It would change my position that life from non-life was possible.

Is that not already your position? Or can you provide a definition of "life" that includes both your 'god' and the biology of this planet?

What questions have I not answered?

You have yet to directly answer the questions at the bottom of posts #403 , #412 , and #415.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Was the equivocation intentional to make a point? I am saying I don't believe in magic (coming from a guy who loves performing" magic" tricks!). I think what you meant to say was "you prefer to belive in a very improbable scenario rather than a magical being" and yes I do. In a way we are discussing a God of the gaps argument. It is conceivable that life arose by accident but we obviously have yet to discover the mechanism. You want to insert God into that gap. This has been done many times in the past to explain all manner of natural phenomenon and in each case it has turned out to not require God as a proximal cause. My personal frustration with this approach is (probably a mirror of your frustration with my belief that science will eventually answer the question) that I believe there is likely to be a limit to human understanding. We haven't hit it yet but if we ever do, then there will be a gap to throw God into. Moreover, even when scientific evidence uncovers the mechanism for something that had previously claimed as an act of God, the believer just says "ah you see that is how God did it". Obviously this is true from your world view but you can see the reason for the frustration right?

I would agree with your assessment in that unknown phenomena has in the past and even presently to use a God of the gaps case. What you don't seem to realize is that you could be said to be using Science in gaps. We don't know how the universe came into being but just because we don't know doesn't mean that it didn't do so naturally. We don't know how the laws of physics and chemical processes originated but we are sure there is a natural reason that Science will discover. This is no less begging the question as is the God of the gaps that you cite. So while I understand your frustration I hope that you can also understand mine. Not to mention when someone has had God's revelation in their lives that is confirmation of the God case.

Are you saying that it is like rolling a zillion side die and getting just the right roll? That even though it is possible it is just too improbable? I'm just not sure what you mean by that last sentence.

I don't think it is possible by chance or accident at all.

I'd be interested in hearing what issues you think need to be addressed that can't be solved by time plus chance.

I guess we would have to settle on just what we are saying happened with all this time and this rare bit of chance.

I am going to assume that when you say God you are meaning your Christian God as you understand him. If that is what you meant here are a couple other possibilities that are not aliens or your God.

1) an evil God, Ed (the Cartesian anti god) created life[/Quote]And no one on earth has an inkling that this evil god Ed exists, has nothing that provides any notion of him or even has heard the name? If an evil god did create the universe how would do you explain love, altruism, morality and goodness?

2) your God is a created being, who was created by an even greater God and that greater God created life.

God claims that is untrue and makes it clear that He is not a created Being. He says He doesn't lie. So in this scenario, He would be a liar. That would go against my experience of His behavior towards me, which granted means nothing to you but we are talking about possibilities that I could consider are we not?

3) abiogenisis is a necessary or extremely likely product of any universe because the constants are not random but governed by a rule set we don't yet understand.

Who would set this rule? How would a "rule" be set up to govern not only the constants or parameter that allow for life to exist but the order in which is necessary from the start to allow laws to exist?

Looking forward to your explanation for how you definitively ruled these out

Well there you are.

Did you mean this in a presuppositionalist way? Could you explain exactly what you mean here when you say God makes it possible that we have even a chance to explain anything? Thanks.

I mean the order we find in the universe and the laws that govern it. The laws of logic which we have discovered that allows us to reason at all.


Are you saying that the science actually confirms that God is responsible for the creation of life but that scientists are ignoring this truth because the climate of the institution they work in is anti-god? Or are you saying that they really know and believe that God is responsible and are either keeping this belied quiet for fear of persecution or because they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness?

OK so heaven existed before Jesus did his thing. Was there anyone in heaven aside from God before Jesus came and died?

I thought you said you were a Christian at one time. I am sure this is only a rhetorical question?

You assert here (and many other places in this conversation) that God can not make us little gods meaning that we would never sin. This is an assertion and I would like you to justify it please In doing so please address the instance of God creating Adam and Eve and also all the angels who never chose sin.

This was a one time event, on earth and in Heaven. Adam and Eve on earth making a eternal decision and in Heaven the same.

So it seems that you are objecting to premise 1, saying that she knew good and evil prior to eating the fruit. Please make this case.
Or
Perhaps you are saying I am equivocation between evil and wrong. If so please make this case.
Also eve said that God told them not to eat the fruit but this does not imply she understands rightness and wrongness, good and evil. She did know that she wasn't supposed to eat it but not that there was any wrongness, sinfulness, evil connected to the act of disobedience to God. She couldn't have known this because she hadn't eaten the fruit yet.

I don't claim she knew that there was sinfulness or evil in the act. I think she understood the wrongness and the passage shows that:

And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die’ (Genesis 3:2-3).
They knew God personally and He had given them everything they needed and they had trusted in God. Yet, the pull of being like God was the issue here.
He addresses that: You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day that you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:4-5)

Eve knew that God was "more" that what they were. She knew that God knew things she couldn't know and that is what compelled her to eat the fruit. She understood God's goodness and knew that He knew things she did not know. She wanted that, whether you want to call that wrongness, evilness, or simply disobedience she had a motive and it is shown in her response.
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

She knew God, she knew that He should be trusted, those things she did know and she knew that the person who had created her and had given her everything she needed had told her not to do something. She knew it was wrong to do not from being evil or being sinful but just having a choice to do what God wished or not. She chose to do what she wanted to do rather than do what God wished her to do.

So do you now agree with my conclusion?

Do you agree with mine?

Did I force them nope...but you haven't answerd the question. I asked am I responsible for what happened. Let's say I give my 2 year old a really sharp knife and leave the room. When he hurts himself or some else, am I responsible?

Yes, you are and so was God in giving Adam and Eve the ability to choose. I think God really does want beings that understand the true meaning of love, to understand the true meaning of good and to understand that one must know what it means to lack love or goodness.

Also I am not sure what you meant by the second half of that, existence versus no existence. Are you repeating your assertion that we couldn't exist at all except as being with sin? If so I don't see how it is relevant to the situation. All I would have had to do was not leave cake out...

The issue is equating cake to something as complex as love, goodness and choice. It just doesn't relate.

So here it is again.. Are some of the angels sin free, were Adam and Eve free of sin prior to the fruit incident, are infants free of sin?

All the angels were sin free as well as Adam and Eve. Free will was instilled in both.

I do2see the logical connection between God not being a created thing and an inability to create sin free creatures. Please explain.

He created sin free creatures, but with the ability to sin. You are wanting God to create creatures that had no ability to sin. However, they would not be what we are. They would not know what love truly is, what it is to be without it because you only can understand love fully when you have experience the lack of it. Just like you don't know what light is without knowing what darkness is.

Only godlike (sinless?) beings can live with God...this is an assertion, why is this necessarily the case?

Because God can not dwell with sin due to his nature being Just.

The only way to allow for reconciliation is a sacrifice by God himself... This is an assertion please justify it. Be sure to include the fact that other theologies have ways of being made right with God, works based systems, decrees of forgiveness by the God, we also of course have the law in the old testament.

This speaks volumes towards your walk with Christianity. If you don't understand the OT laws, what they signified in preparation of Christ then I understand your position much more clearly. It seems you might not have researched anything in a theological vein but only through a secular one.

So the angels are gods?

No, but those in heaven chose not to sin. It was a one time event and they chose God.


[QuoteAre you saying that at no point did God tell his people to go kill the Amalakites?[/Quote]No, and I never claimed that.

Well I sort of agree here. My concept of being perfectly good does not include creating beings and then drowning them so obviously of God exists then he and I have different understandings of what good is. The interesting thing is that this is the same position you are in. If gods ways are really not our ways you really don't have much of a basis for claiming to know anything about him. If you are willing to accept that it could be consistent with his nature to kill infants and call himself good why would it be inconsistent for him to inspire a holy text full of errors to mislead people so that they could be deceived and get punished?

Do you understand what evil is? You have already claimed that you don't believe that evil exists so why would I find your position valid in assessing the motives of God? I know personally that God cares very much for His creation. I also don't agree that the Bible is full of errors to mislead people and most scholars are in agreement.

I agree he doesn't make us do it, but are you conceding that God does have a responsibility for what happens here on earth?

I do.

Are you saying that God is so powerless that his very life (self defense) is endangered by the beings he created? Are you saying that his only option was to kill them all. If so please justify this. And if you could also answer the question I asked you

It was self defense for the Jews. I don't believe it was genocide.

Are you aware of how often you respond in this way. When pushed about the internal consistency of morality within your belief system you respond by demanding that I defend morality on mine. I understand that you think I will have a hard time justifying my position on my world view but please do me the courtesy of answering the question On my world view morality is based on the principles of harm and empathy, to the extent that those people knew that slavery was harmful and saw the slaves as other human beings like themselves they were morally wrong. This is even more the case for God who must know that it is harmful and that they are humans made in his image. Your turn!

Does this mean I have no right to show your own inconsistency? When one claims that there is no objective standard of morality other than community or culture it seems inconsistent to claim that this culture was immoral for their view that slavery was not immoral. That being said we know that there was self imposed slavery which we probably both agree was not immoral. What I find if looking at slavery of the Old Testament is God speaking to a culture that has slaves but are to be put to death if they kidnap someone and make them slaves against their will. I see slavery of those who survive attacks of war out of necessity and not the same as kidnapping because they could not live without being taken in. I look at the actions and practices in the Old Testament a testament of a culture and differences from ours are apparent. In many things actually. We know that the Bible claims that all men and women are created equal. That we are to treat people as we would want to be treated. So while God may have provided instruction on how slaves should be treated and what would happen in certain instances, He didn't condemn the practice in name. Now this is my view. I understand you disagree. I don't know what you would have people who couldn't provide for their families to do if there was no welfare like there is today. I don't know what you would do for the old, women and children that have lost their men in a war, women had no rights in those societies and could not make their own living so what solution would you have for them? You seem to see the injustice but are blind to the reality of those involved in that culture.

So this is one of those unhelpful responses where I get to do a bunch of scrolling... I understand from your response that you don't agree with either option but if you feel it is a false dichotomy please provide another option.
And again: is God's nature good because he says it is or is it good because it aligns with an external standard of good?

Is the nature of anyone something or other because they say it is? If someone is selfish are they selfish because they say they are, or because there is some other external standard that makes selfishness? This doesn't make sense. If someone is loving, are they loving because they say they are or are they loving due to their own character/nature? Are they loving because someone outside of them deems what is loving? You see the problem? (Sorry, I keep forgetting you are doing this on the phone. My apologies again.)

I agree, so it would seem that even on your world view morality is not objective and unchanging.

I think you are confusing objective with absolute.

Great example but this is still about harm. In this case the harm is to the relationship between the two friends. Happy to entertain any other examples you might want to try... Or we can just agree that morality is based on the principle of harm?

I think you are stretching here. I think we might be seeing harm in different ways.


[QuoteHow is this different from condoning it? He says there are the things that you are not to do because they are sinful but owning other humans as property is not on that list. This means that as long as you own them the way he wants you too then it is fine. This is condoning.

Notice that we just went from slavery where people are getting beaten to near death to young and old being cared for as servants. This is equivocation.[/Quote]See above.

Remember that I didn't say there was no such thing as good, also I replace evil with harm. If you can give me an example where morality is not about harm then I will have to reconsider this. Until that happens please answer the question as asked.

You said: Well I don't think evil exists at all. Evil is a religious term that implies there is an objective concept of the good and of the evil. I don't believe that any gods exist, nor do I believe that there exists an objective standard of good or evil (platonism), somewhere out there. In my mind actions within a given situation can be good or harmful in degrees.

You put good and evil in the same way. What standard do you use in terms of good?

When you've asked a question and I have neglected answering or asked something instead of answering right off would you please ask it again? I am posting to many different people and time is hard to come by right now and so going back to see what question I might have missed is maybe not as hard as being on a phone but it might mean going back through many of my posts to find it and that does take quite a bit of time. Thanks.

In that case I am fine to say that it is entirely fallacious and I will reject on this basis any point that depends on it as a premise.

You can say anything you wish.

That is not what I said. I said they are both equally true. This will change as evidence is brought to bear but this does not address the central objection in my comment...

I suppose that depends on what you call evidence in your central objection.

Great news! But I have to push back on that final point. I am going to guess that you have not actually investigated all other religions with the same rigour and open mindedness that you have Christianity which is of course the major religion in your cultural context. How can you be certain that your cultural situation had nothing to do with your choice?

You would be wrong. I haven't looked into all but of all the main religions of the world I most certainly have researched them with the same open mindedness in fact probably a broader openmindedness in some cases than Christianity.

Can you see here that you didn't actually answer the question. I specifically asked you what evidence you think would move you to being less confident and you respond by telling me to provide you with evidence... If you can, please answer the question, I am truly interested in knowing what kinds of evidence you think could falsify your belief commitment.

I don't believe you hold any evidence that would convince me that I do not have a personal relationship with God and who God is. Now you might, but how would I know what that would be?

Why is human beings being synonymous with God, the only possible solution. Please justify this assertion.

Would you please describe God as you understood when you were a Christian? Humor me by answering this and I promise I will try to clarify what I am saying here.

Couple things here. First God does place thoughts into people's heads (Or hardens their hearts, or decieves them), you acknowledge above that he does have some responsibility and I find your final bit interesting in light of our discussion about Adam and Eve

Final thought: I am all for the Socratic method, however I am finding it difficult on a phone to continuously to go back to earlier posts to see what question it is that you have avoided answering I don't know if you are aware of just how often you respond to my questions with a question of your own. To be clear, I didn't mind being asked questions in response but it would be really helpful if you included with your question a clear response to the questions asked of you.

Hope you are enjoying Easter weekend

See above.

 

[Athée]

What you don't seem to realize is that you could be said to be using Science in gaps.

I think in a sense you are correct. I do think that science will fill those gaps and that the explanation will turn out to be a natural one. That said the position I hold is, I think, more intellectually honest. I am saying, I don't know how it happened and as long as I don't know I am going to hold the belief tentatively. It seems to me that often believers will say, since has no explanation therefore we know God did it. I don't know that the explanation for the universe or for abiogenisis is going to be a natural one. It could be what we would call a supernatural explanation, but until there is a reason to conclude this then I will remain agnostic. That said I do lean towards a natural explanation for these things because every time in the past that anyone has claimed something is happening in as a result of God working in the natural world, this has turned out to not be the case. This does not mean I am justified in saying, there is no possibility that there is a supernatural explanation, but I think it does justify leaning towards a natural one.

This is no less begging the question as is the God of the gaps that you cite. So while I understand your frustration I hope that you can also understand mine. Not to mention when someone has had God's revelation in their lives that is confirmation of the God case

I don't see how it is the same begging of the question. I am not assuming that scientific explanations exist and therefore they can explain the phenomenon. They clearly do exist and are demonstrable, assumption is that they will continue to explain things. You are saying a supernatural being exists, one that most people in the world don't believe exists and positing him as an explanation and using the phenomenon in questions, that needs explaining, as evidence that your God exists. To me this is begging the question in a way that my position is not. Thoughts?

I don't think it is possible by chance or accident at all.

What specifically is it that you think could not happen by chance + time? Is it the creation of single celled organisms or the creation of components that could evolve into those organisms? I guess I am curious what you mean when you say abiogenisis

1) an evil God, Ed (the Cartesian anti god) created life

And no one on earth has an inkling that this evil god Ed exists, has nothing that provides any notion of him or even has heard the name? If an evil god did create the universe how would do you explain love, altruism, morality and goodness?[/QUOTE]

No one has any notionnel him because it serves his purposes to be hidden. We experience goodness, altruism, hope, morality etc so that in contrast we can truly understand badness, selfishness, despair and immorality etc. This being wants the pain of loss to be greatly multiplied by our experience of good things.
How have you ruled out this possibility?

God claims that is untrue and makes it clear that He is not a created Being. He says He doesn't lie. So in this scenario, He would be a liar. That would go against my experience of His behavior towards me, which granted means nothing to you but we are talking about possibilities that I could consider are we not?

Maybe God thinks he is uncreated but he is honestly mistaken about this. This means he isn't lying but is just in error.

No, we aren't just doing with possibilities you would accept we are trying to rule out all logically possible options as this was the claim made.

Who would set this rule? How would a "rule" be set up to govern not only the constants or parameter that allow for life to exist but the order in which is necessary from the start to allow laws to exist?

I think maybe you misread my comment. I was suggesting a set of rules, that is, a set of relationships between the values that make them non random. For example I would say it is logically impossible for God to have created a universe with matter in which a specific rock and be a rock and a non rock in the same place at the same time and in the same way. This law of non contradiction ses to be an inherent property of matter, or put another way it is a rule about the relationship between matter and the law of non contradiction. I don't think we need to posit any lawgiver or rule maker to establish these.

I mean the order we find in the universe and the laws that govern it. The laws of logic which we have discovered that allows us to reason at all.

If God is the one who created the laws of logic, do you think he could have created them differently? Could he have made a rock both be a rock and not be a rock in the same way at the same time and in the same place?

Are you saying that the science actually confirms that God is responsible for the creation of life but that scientists are ignoring this truth because the climate of the institution they work in is anti-god? Or are you saying that they really know and believe that God is responsible and are either keeping this belied quiet for fear of persecution or because they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness?

The formating did some odd things to your post and I think you may have meant to answer this but it got moved on you or some such

I thought you said you were a Christian at one time. I am sure this is only a rhetorical question?

To a degree. What I am trying to post out is that you believe that God created beings who can have free will, can be with him in heaven and will not ever, nor have they ever chosen to sin. This is a proof of concept that good could indeed have done this with humans. This means that God had to actually want sin in the world for some reason. God, in essence, created sin as part of his plan. So why would we call a being good of it had the option of creating humans in Paradise but chose instead to make them suffer and to condemn most of them to a he'll, that we are told wasn't built for them in the first place?

This was a one time event, on earth and in Heaven. Adam and Eve on earth making a eternal decision and in Heaven the same.

Sure, a one time event that happened a bunch of times, once for Adam, once for Eve, once for each of the angels and once for each of the (now) demons. Even if this is true, the point is that God can and absolutely has created being with free will, who will never choose sin, which makes it hard to justify all the suffering we see.

I don't claim she knew that there was sinfulness or evil in the act. I think she understood the wrongness and the passage shows that:

I agree that she knew she was supposed to do what God told her and don't do what he told her not to. But I think k you are smuggling in your own awareness of right and wrong I to your interpretation. She may have know that she was not supposed to eat the fruit but she didn't know that disobedience was a "wrong". If she didn't have this awareness how can we say that she freely chose to do wrong?

He addresses that: You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day that you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

This is an odd bit because God says you will die and then they don't? Now you can say it is about spiritual death but then we are back to the same problem.. They would have no way of knowing what spiritual death meant or how it happened or what the consequences would be. Without this how can we say that they are making a free will choice? Yes they freely chose to disobey but if they had no knowledge that it was "wrong" to do so then how is it a sin?

he understood God's goodness and knew that He knew things she did not know. She wanted that, whether you want to call that wrongness, evilness, or simply disobedience she had a motive and it is shown in her response.

So again, eve has no knowledge of good and evil all she knows is that there is this really amazing (how does she determin this if she doesn't know what good is?) being that has provided for her. She wants to be as much like him as possible... The ultimate WWJD experience, except WWGD I guess and without any knowledge that it is sinful to do so, tries to be like him. And this merits not only her spiritual death but the spiritual death of the entire race?

I guess the other possibility is that this whole story is just a myth made up to describe the truths about the way a certain primitive people accounted for human life and it was never meant to be taken as history.

Which is more likely, that this is a myth or that a good and morally perfect being decided to punish not only Eve but all her decendants for making a decision (in a situation he created and allowed) with no knowledge of what the choice entailed or its consequences?

Yes, you are and so was God in giving Adam and Eve the ability to choose. I think God really does want beings that understand the true meaning of love, to understand the true meaning of good and to understand that one must know what it means to lack love or goodness

This is interesting. It is the inverse of the Ed argument from earlier. The good God creates and allows evil so that people can better understand good, while Ed allows good so that people better understand evil. How do we know which is the case?
But even if you are right it means that it is all part of God's plan that eve would fail, and everyone would be punished for something they didn't choose, and that gods interventions to solve the problem he created would fail over and over (but of course he planned this too) so that eventually he could kill himself (sort of, for a couple days) so that he could forgive the people for doing what he created them to do...

All the angels were sin free as well as Adam and Eve. Free will was instilled in both.

As I said above this means that God can and has created beings that you said earlier were like little gods and asserted several times that God could not do this.

He created sin free creatures, but with the ability to sin. You are wanting God to create creatures that had no ability to sin. However, they would not be what we are. They would not know what love truly is, what it is to be without it because you only can understand love fully when you have experience the lack of it. Just like you don't know what light is without knowing what darkness is

Not at all. If God sime created us with the ability to choose sin but with natives that would never do so, like the angles, then there would be no issue.

Because God can not dwell with sin due to his nature being Just.

This one is biblically supported so fair enough from your world view. Overzealous question by me :/

This speaks volumes towards your walk with Christianity. If you don't understand the OT laws, what they signified in preparation of Christ then I understand your position much more clearly. It seems you might not have researched anything in a theological vein but only through a secular one.

I would suggest that while we may disagree on the nuances that I could probably get pretty close to your belief about the purpose of the old testament laws. I imagine you see them as posting towards Jesus, that they were impossible to keep perfectly to show us how we need God to cover our sins, that we can't do it by our own works. You might include that the sacrifices used to purify Israel of past and future sin find thier fulfilment in Jesus... Am I close?
Close or not this doesn't actually address the question I was asking. You said the only way a person can be forgiven by God is for God to die for them. In addition to all the other systems proposed which are all logically valid, the fact that old testament news were forgiven by animal sacrifice is an example where you are simply incorrect and it is from your own belief system. You could argue I suppose that in some mystical way the animals being sacrificed were in some real way actually Jesus but I think we both would agree that is a bit of a reach. Thus we are left with the initial question. Aside from simply asserting it, how have you made the determination that the only way to be reconciled with God is by child (divine of course) sacrifice?

No, and I never claimed that.

This is true you didn't. The point was that God has absolutely told his people to go out and kill everyone in another people group.

Do you understand what evil is? You have already claimed that you don't believe that evil exists so why would I find your position valid in assessing the motives of God? I know personally that God cares very much for His creation. I also don't agree that the Bible is full of errors to mislead people and most scholars are in agreement.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by evil... Um... What do you mean?
Well you have yet to demonstrate that my concept of harm is problematic for deriving morality so you would need to do that at least, before telling me my thoughts on morality are irrelevant. Moreover, if you define evil as that which is contrary to the will of God (even though the whole plan which includes evil is proceeding the way he willed it) then by definition anything God does can't be evil and I don't think that is very helpful. It would mean that if tomorrow God decided that writing in pen was immoral then so it would be, or of he decided that domestic abuse is moral then it would be. If however, you agree with me that harming humans is not good then we have sufficient agreement for my evaluation of God's actions to be worth thinking about.

It was self defense for the Jews. I don't believe it was genocide.

Sure but the Jews were never in danger. God could have magically transported all thier enemies to another habitable planet or a million other possible solutions that didn't involve killing men, women and children and infants and foetuses. To aay the Jews were acting in self defence with God on thier side is like saying I am justified in shooting a toddler to death because he came at me holding a knife!
Actually the truth is that I agree with you. I think the Jews were acting itself defence, I think they had to attack neighbours be use otherwise they would have been attacked or taken over themselves. I believe this because I don't think there was a God fighting for them. I think thier claims are like all the other claims of all the other countries that say a God is on thier side.
Again what is more likely, that the all powerful, loving, merciful God of the cosmos, who would later kill his own son to make a way for people just like the amalakites, would slaughter them all, down to the infants who had yet had no chance to make any free will choice of moral significance (interesting parallel between eve with no knowledge of good and evil and an infant by the way),
Or
That people simply made it up like pretty much every people group both at thier time and before them.?

Does this mean I have no right to show your own inconsistency? When one claims that there is no objective standard of morality other than community or culture it seems inconsistent to claim that this culture was immoral for their view that slavery was not immoral

Absolutly not, you can/should for sure ask me the tough questions, just be sure to try to pick out the central point in the ones coming your way and respond! I will try to do the same as I recognize that I don't always do this either
You keep saying that my position is that the only arbiter of Moritz is community and culture... This will be something like the 5th time I have said, yes moraliry is culturally constructed,
But
There are other elements as well, part of it is based on what know you have. If you think women are less value than men, as the Bible definitely does, then it is morally not to treat them equally. If you understand that this is not the case that women are just as valuable as human beings as males then it is immoral to treat them unequally. I would also add that some elements of our morality are explained by an evolutionary context.
Now that we are clear the problem is that of God exists as you perceive him then he has all possible knowledge and so has no excuse for the rules described in his holy book that you yourself word call immoral. Perhaps this is why you keep leaving the importance of knowledge out of your straw man of my position, because it is precisely the element which is most problematic for your belief that good is good and moral in an objective, unchanging way.

That being said we know that there was self imposed slavery which we probably both agree was not immoral.

I do agree here although I would not call it slavery but indentured servitude, or something similar.

What I find if looking at slavery of the Old Testament is God speaking to a culture that has slaves but are to be put to death if they kidnap someone and make them slaves against their will. I see slavery of those who survive attacks of war out of necessity and not the same as kidnapping because they could not live without being taken in. I look at the actions and practices in the Old Testament a testament of a culture and differences from ours are apparent.

Could you provide me with the reference for not being allowed to take slaves against their will.. I can't find it and it would cause me to rethink my position on this.
I struggle to see how you can think kn that taking people in the aftermath of a war, and then making them salves is moral. I get that this is what the Bible says but do you truly agree? Look at what the law says about how you can treat slaves, beating them, sleeping with them, giving them to your son to sleep with, holding thier families hostage, passing them on as property along with your estate. If someone did that to you and yours, would you consider it good and moral of them?
Now you are possibly going to reply... But what would you have them do with these people... Leave them to die!?
No but they could have taken them on as household labour, indentured servants, craftspeople working for the profit of the family etc all of these could be accomplished without the beatings, sex slavery etc.

Again what is more likely. The all good, all knowing, loving, merciful God of the universe thinks it is within the bounds of sinless living to own other humans as property that you can beat.
Or
The people in power who were benefiting financially from having slaves, wrote down that it was OK to have slaves because God says so (even if he didn't)?

So while God may have provided instruction on how slaves should be treated and what would happen in certain instances, He didn't condemn the practice in name.

But he did. Think of it this way... God is writing his book on how to live perfect and sinless lives. So he notices that people made in his image are owning other people made in his image and so he says in his book. Hey guys it is wrong to own other people as property, don't do it. This is what condemning it would look like. It could be sliced in there with the other super important ones about mixed fabrics and seafood
What we actually find is condoning it by saying... Go ahead and take and make salves but here are a few rules.

As always though I think people made this stuff up, I don't think your God ever said anything like this and so I underway you are having a hard time justifying it.

I don't know what you would do for the old, women and children that have lost their men in a war, women had no rights in those societies and could not make their own living so what solution would you have for them? You seem to see the injustice but are blind to the reality of those involved in that culture.

I am not blind I just think the all powerful God of the universe could do better than killing thier support structure and then giving them as property to his people, after which he allows them to be abused because "the are property".

Is the nature of anyone something or other because they say it is? If someone is selfish are they selfish because they say they are, or because there is some other external standard that makes selfishness? This doesn't make sense. If someone is loving, are they loving because they say they are or are they loving due to their own character/nature? Are they loving because someone outside of them deems what is loving? You see the problem? (Sorry, I keep forgetting you are doing this on the phone. My apologies again.)

No worries, I do OK on the phone although it is difficult for sure.
So to answer your objection I think the answer to most of your questions is that, no someone is not living because they say they are, it yes they are loving because the actions they take align with the commonly agreed on definition of what it is to be loving. Or they are selfish to the extent that thier actions conform to what is commonly entailed in the definition of selfishness. This is absolutely an acceptable response to the euthyphro if you don't believe in a God. Where it is tricky for you I think, is that you realize that if God's nature is good because he says it is, then goodness (and morality) become subjective and changable it if you say his nature is good because if aligns with an external standard of goodness then God is not the author of goodness and is not free to define it. It's a tricky question for the believer for sure and one that is worth thinking about. I will look forward to your next cracks at it

I think you are confusing objective with absolute.

Possibly, what do you mean by objective versus absolute?

I think you are stretching here. I think we might be seeing harm in different ways.

Well of you only see harm as a physical thing then I think you could do with a more nuanced view of harm. But even if you disagree we are discussing the foundations for my system of morality, so the definition I use is pretty important!
If you want to question my use of the term feel free to do so, or to provide another example of morality that doesn't involve harm.

You put good and evil in the same way. What standard do you use in terms of good?

That which leads to flourishing while minimizing harm is where I would start to define it.

When you've asked a question and I have neglected answering or asked something instead of answering right off would you please ask it again? I am posting to many different people and time is hard to come by right now and so going back to see what question I might have missed is maybe not as hard as being on a phone but it might mean going back through many of my posts to find it and that does take quite a bit of time. Thanks.

Will do... Have to run will edit later to find ish this off.
I'm back... Did you miss me?
Anyway yes you are talking on many fronts and putting time into each and do a pretty good job of it too

I suppose that depends on what you call evidence in your central objection.

Well we are talking about competing spiritual claims. You say Yahweh they say Allah, how do we tell who if anyone is correct.

You would be wrong. I haven't looked into all but of all the main religions of the world I most certainly have researched them with the same open mindedness in fact probably a broader openmindedness in some cases than Christianity.

So what made you decide against Odin or Ra or Jupiter?
Is it possible that the reason you rejected other religions is informed by your cultural context? If you grow up in a place where everyone believes that the only way to be right with God is for his to forgive you for free, when you encounter a works based model it will probably seem non-intuitive to you, making it more likely you will reject it, even though it is logically just as valid as a grace based model?
I would be interested to hear what your main reason or two was for rejecting Islam, catholicism, Hinduism etc.

I don't believe you hold any evidence that would convince me that I do not have a personal relationship with God and who God is. Now you might, but how would I know what that would be?

That's fair enough but I am not asking you to speculate about what evidence I might have. I am asking what events, or facts, or other could either convince you that you have been mistaken about this personal relationship or cause you to reevaluate your certainty?

Would you please describe God as you understood when you were a Christian? Humor me by answering this and I promise I will tr

Wow this is tough! You try it um... I guess I would have said that in addition to being the creator of everything, he is a triune, relational God who wants to be in relationship with us and who wants us to glorify him, in our beliefs, actions, words as well as by what we don't do, say and think. I think I probably would have been pretty much in alignment with the nicean creed.

I feel like there might have been more to respond to but that's it for now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, I answered this but messed up the formatting so you missed it. Here was my response:

This can be explained very easily indeed by the pretty well-understood process of mountain building. Basically, bivalves and whatnot are entombed on the sea floor as they die and then later on the collision of tectonic plates results in these lithified marine deposits being uplifted into mountains. In fact the Himalayas are still being uplifted as we speak as the Indian plate continues to collide with the Eurasian plate.

I apologize that this was so long in coming. Also, Sorry, this wasn't your fault because I read it and concluded it sounded logical and was going to say that and I must have lost it somehow. It does sound reasonable and I will have to look into it further. Thanks.

This leaves me with the question of why I'm to burn in Hell when God could save my soul with a more obvious sign as he has done on various occasions. The only thing I can think of is that I'm simply not important enough to him that, despite his omnipotence, he's not willing to expend the effort. He doesn't need me as an apostle so I can go to Hell.

Did you die? Just lightening the mood hopefully there. Seriously though, IMHO, God has a timing that we just don't always understand. For instance, Anthony Flew, he spent a great deal of time and effort denouncing the Christian God and yet very late in life he had his spiritual eyes opened. He was in his eighties when this occurred which after being an avid atheist for so long and his age people had a hard time believing his transformation. My point then is that the time it is too late is when you are dead.

So you don't think Jesus is telling his followers that he will be back for the final judgement?

I think he was talking about the transfiguration and the Holy Spirit.



[/Quote]Just to be clear, when you say "passed judgment" you mean he "cements or stays the condition of the heart of pharaoh" i.e. hardens Pharaoh's heart as punishment.

Do you agree that God has hardened Pharaoh's heart at this moment in order to achieve His goals?[/Quote]I do, I don't however feel it changed his heart. In his heart he would still have let the Jews go, but he would have went after them just the same as he actually did but this would have taken place before God did all He wanted to do.

Very unexpected indeed. So unexpected that I assume it's actually just miscommunication. I am asking you this:

During the time period (however long it was, be it seconds or hours) when God hardened Pharaoh's heart, could Pharaoh have fought against that divinely induced heart hardening and softened his heart? In other words, could he have countered the will of God that his heart be hardened in that moment?

I don't think he could have countered God's judgement, no one can. That being said, I don't think he changed his heart but cemented it at the time so that all that God wished to be done could be done.

I am getting ahead of myself a bit, it's true; you haven't actually conceded that God hardening Pharaoh's heart violated his free will. But you haven't explained why it doesn't. So I refer you to my question above. Could Pharaoh have controverted God's will and kept his heart from being hardened in that moment when God chose to harden it? If he couldn't have countered God's will in this way then his free will was at least momentarily subverted.

Was it his true free will? Can we know? We know that he was already hardened and only "softened" his heart momentarily and then it would return to the hardened state. So if God hardened it in the "softened" moment, was it a true softening of the heart if time and time again he would harden it after this momentary lapse of his own will?

If this is the case then we come back to the other question: If God is willing to compromise free will to achieve his goals, why is he not willing to do so to save souls that cannot otherwise be saved? Pharaoh's willingness to repent is not relevant to the specific point I'm making.

How is that different than forcing worship and love? It is clear that God doesn't wish to force anyone to worship Him. So if He forced everyone's will all the time to make them worship Him how does that produce true worship and love?

You haven't actually answered the question though. Would you force your child to take the medicine? The legal rights of the child aren't really relevant here which can be illustrated if we change the scenario somewhat:

Imagine this event takes place in the not too distant future when your child is, say, 24. You have no legal power to force them to take medicine. It doesn't matter why they won't take the medicine. Would it matter to you if they were paranoid or just philosophically opposed? Would that affect your decision to save their life or not? So same question. Your child is dying and there is a medicine that could restore them to perfect health but for some reason they absolutely refuse to let you give it to them. Would you let them die? Or would you force the medication on them no matter how much they objected? Please explain your reasoning.

Let me answer first before making a counter point. If there was no good reason such as debilitating conditions of the child (you did say perfect health right?) and no adverse reason for them not to take it I would have to consider having them by law to take it. I would follow legal venues to provide the medicine to my child. Having said that, nothing is as black and white as you seem to see it. Perhaps, they are desperately depressed and that is why and they go afterward and kill themselves, or worse yet, they are mentally troubled and cause pain and suffering to others by living on. My point, is that as humans we don't know how our actions concerning another impacts their lives or the lives of those their lives touch. We don't have all the information it takes to determine how one life affects others or their own and only God has that information. So while it might be thought that it is much kinder and loving to make my child take the medicine it might have been the best outcome rather than let them kill themselves in a more painful and torturous way, or even that they would go on and cause such pain in suffering in another's life.

I don't think it did subvert their free will. That's the point. You suggested that it would have violated Pharaoh's free will if God had allowed him to be convinced by the plagues because "the plagues would have been the reason [for pharaoh's conversion] which actually would have taken away his free will because God brought them upon Pharaoh". My point is that if you think convincing people by showing them signs and wonders violates free will, then the unbeliever Paul's free will was violated when Jesus appeared before him, blinded him and miraculously healed him. I assume you don't think Paul's free will was violated, so it is not consistent to argue that Pharaoh's free will would have been violated if God had allowed the plagues to convince him to release the Jews.

If you make a choice due to reasons that convince you by way of reason and experience is that not normal and usual but if you are brought to your knees in misery and suffering how free is that compared to the choice being due to reasoning? If someone sits here and gives me their reasons for belief for instance that there is no God I am in full faculty of my will but if someone is cutting off my fingers one by one and claiming that they are god and can stop the suffering if only I worship them I think that is more in line with subverting my will than the reasoning is. Don't you agree?

If God has the omnipotence we are told he does then I'm sure he could manage a talking horse. That is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making. The point is that I am able to make inferences about what existed in the past based on data from the present. Let's make the example more extreme to illustrate the point more clearly: it is possible that, in the time of the OT, eggplants were sentient, but there is no evidence of this. I infer based on the lack of indications of sentience in all eggplants ever observed that the were not sentient at any time in the past. I think this inference carries much more weight than someone claiming that sentient eggplants might well have existed because we were't there so we can't say for sure.

All this does is show the differences between actually knowing God exists and has the ability to do this as well as creating a orderly and amazing universe vs. someone who doesn't know He exists and has no reason (in their estimation) to believe that this could really happen. When I read about talking snakes and horses prior to God revealing Himself, I was just the same way. I don't blame you for your disbelief in horses (actually it was a donkey) or snakes talking, I've been there myself. Which brings me to this question, if God did create that sign that you so desire to be able to believe, would you then believe that god really could talk through a donkey or that there really is an evil being that can take the form of a snake and talk?

You are attempting to demonstrate that there is potentially a reason why killing all the babies was necessary. So far I have, I think successfully, argued that your proposed reasons do not comport with reality. This leaves you with no more than the assertion that a logical explanation is possible.

And you with the assertion that no logical explanation is possible. Which seems more open-minded and fair minded? I think to claim that there would be no possible logical or most importantly moral explanation, one that would be the best possible outcome knowing all the information of past and future actions involved is only based on your own bias and close-mindedness towards God. You feel that you have somehow shown how unlikely that is because I haven't satisfied your idea of what a good and logical reason might be, but I'm not God and I don't have the information that God has. So to say you have been successful in your argumentation against my reasons not comporting with reality would seem rather an empty success when it is not God you are arguing with but just little ol' me.

I think I have enough pertinent information to conclude that mercy killing five babies is better than mercy killing five thousand babies.

Really? How would you know? Maybe it is more important to those people that they actually lived rather than not. Perhaps God wanted five thousand babies with Him rather than just five. In fact, that seems more reasonable to have more with Him rather than just a few.

The results in both cases is innocent baby souls flying up to Heaven. However in the former case I have only killed five babies and saved a nation of souls from Hell.

Numbers...not just five in heaven rather five thousand seems a pretty good outcome.

I suspect that you really can't come up with any explanation of why the former situation is not more merciful than the latter when we remember that God's desire is supposedly to live in Heaven with as many of his beloved creations as possible and that he is omnipotent. I won't ask you for evidence of this claim, but I will evaluate it to see if it really comports with what we know of God. So, why might killing a few thousand babies (and allowing several generations of souls go to Hell before you get to that point) be more merciful than killing just a few babies early on?

Five thousand in heaven rather than five...I think it speaks for itself.

You have made this point previously but have not supported it beyond mere assertion. What prevents God from creating beings with a perfect nature that is no more compatible with sinning than his own? Do you have any scriptural support for this?

I am only asserting that we are not God and can't be? I think it is rather obvious is it not? God is the only being without sin. Angels are the only beings that had one chance at redemption and if they chose to go with God they made that eternal choice and were then sin free but we as humans are chosen to live this life. To know all sorts of kinds of love, to know how it feels to create, how it feels to be a mother or father...a grandmother or grandfather. To live in another world to experience things that angels only get to see fleetingly if at all. Angels are not considered in the same level (for lack of a better term)than humans. There is definitely more risk in being a human but far more to gain. There are many many passages that say that God has a perfect nature, we don't just because we are created. Sinlessness is not something that God does but is. He didn't create sinlessness but is perfect in nature, we are not perfect in nature and can't be because we are created rather than just being perfect and sin free. I want to convey this context but it seems you are not understanding what I am saying and I don't know in what way to express it to allow comprehension.

Would some choose to be good? It though you were saying that these nations had to be exterminated because they were incurably, invariably evil. I'm not saying these souls should never have existed. Couldn't these souls have been born into better, non-evil nations instead of the evil ones?

It was they that made it evil?

Nowhere have I argued that the solution is to have no humans exist and my problem is with babies being killed. Please quote the post where I make such an argument if I am mistaken on this.

What you are asking is that we humans must be like God in nature when we can't. It is like a square circle...impossible.

Interesting. Thank you for clarifying this facet of your morality.

Judging me?

My problem is that you have not supported the assertion that killing babies before they choose good or evil doesn't violate their free will. I'm aware that babies do indeed make decisions, but you said in your last post that "babies are not old enough to chose. They don't have the ability to make that determination". In other words babies are not able to make a free will choice between good and evil, correct? Therefore it seems to me that killing them before they are able to make that choice violates their free will. So here is the question again. Please do me the courtesy of answering it:

If free will is the chance to choose right or wrong, how is preventing a person from making that choice by killing them when they are a baby not a violation of that principle?

If God knows what their choice would be if their lives were lived out and He knew that only 1/3 of them would chose to accept redemption and 2/3 would not; is it wrong of God to allow them a free pass to heaven? Or...if all of the babies would chose to accept redemption anyway and God just took them early, is that wrong of God? It seems you are a victim of black and white thinking, you seem to be saying that if God really wants us to have free will in all the purpose of the existence of humans but at times takes away that free will then that means it really isn't important to Him at all. I disagree, I think that a good and moral God may have reasons for the greatest good for all humanity that some are taken early and are stopped from living out their choices, some who would have gone to hell were saved from it and others that would in life are rewarded early does not mean that free will is not important if not of great importance to God. How does subverting some free will mean free will is not of utmost importance to God for His plan for mankind?

I mean that ordering you to kill babies is not something Jesus would do, according to you, but it is not inconsistent with his nature because god's nature is immutable and he has been known to give such orders.

There was a time that it was necessary, after the life, death and resurrection of Christ the dynamics of earth and salvation changed.

I think it is for the most part, yes. I still think it's strange to suppose that an omnipotent being could think of no other way to neutralize a threat than to have all the babies killed.

See above.

Sorry, it seems unambiguous to me. Could you please explain what Jesus means if he does not mean that you should value your relationship with him more than your relationship with your children when he says "he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." Matthew 10:37"?

Then we can get back to the question of whether you really love Jesus more than your child and whether you would really choose Jesus over your child if such a choice were necessary.

You are misinterpreting the passage and then asking me to accept it and answer the question. That is like telling me that 2+2=5 now tell me why? It isn't so I can't. This is the same case. He says there will be a time when we might have to chose Him if those we love are against our faith in Him. We are to love God above all things and that includes people. God, family, friends and all "things" after that. That doesn't mean that He expects someone to leave your child or anything detrimental to them. There is a passage that speaks about a time in the end of days that some families will be against each other even among children and parents but this is between adults and has everything to do with some authority making all people take the mark of the anti-Christ if they wish to eat. So at this time some unbelieving family members might have to give up their families to eat and buy. I don't know how much you have really studied all this so I don't know how much you are aware of really.

I don't think it's impossible, I think it's very unlikely and I think that inferences based on actual data carry more weight than inferences based on no data whatsoever.

Data is not completely lacking.

Oxygen may have filled Earth's atmosphere hundreds of millions of years earlier than previously thought, suggesting that sunlight-dependent life akin to modern plants evolved very early in Earth's history, a new study finds.

'Almost certainly biological'

All in all, the researchers suggest atmospheric oxygen levels 3 billion years ago were about 100,000 times higher than what can be explained by regular chemical reactions in Earth's atmosphere. "That suggests the source of this oxygen was almost certainly biological," Crowe said.

"It's exciting that it took a relatively short time for oxygenic photosynthesis to evolve on Earth," Crowe added. "It means that it could happen on other planets on Earth, expanding the number of worlds that could've developed oxygenated atmospheres and complex oxygen-breathing life."

Future research can look for similarly aged rocks from other places, both on and outside Earth, to confirm these findings. "Research could also look at earlier rocks," Crowe said. "Chances are, if there was oxygen 3 billion years ago, there was likely oxygen production some time before as well. How far back does it go?"

http://www.livescience.com/39938-earth-had-oxygen-earlier.html

"Our research shows that land plants and fungi evolved much earlier than previously thought — before the Snowball Earth and Cambrian Explosion events — suggesting their presence could have had a profound effect on the climate and the evolution of life on Earth," says Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist and leader of the Penn State research team that performed the study.

Hedges and his research team made their surprising discoveries about the early appearance on Earth of the first land plants and fungi by studying as many of the genes as possible of their descendants — the species of plants and fungi living today. They began by sifting through their molecular fingerprints — the unique sequences of amino-acid building blocks — in many thousands of genes from hundreds of species archived in the public gene-sequence databases.

http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2001-news/Hedges8-2001.htm

So as you can see there is support for my hypothesis, since they don't have the earliest surface of earth, they are finding evidence through other means.

Okay, good. So you've stated that you believe that angiosperms were created prior to humans. By extension you also believe that "every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it" was created after angiosperms and before land animals.

Okay, I think you've moved off from saying (or maybe you never said this and I misunderstood you) that the bible is just a general summary of what was created and does not provide any chronological relationships for those created groups. Now you are arguing that the bible is probably correct in saying that angiosperms arose prior to sea creatures. To be clear, when you said this:

"I doubt that Bronze Age tribesmen would have any idea that life began in the seas and followed a certain sequence into existence but that is what they recorded in the Bible."

...you were not stating that the bible correctly described life as starting in the sea? What did you mean by this statement?

I meant life as in animal and not plant when I first mentioned all this. I think I've tried to clear this up quite a few times. There are the plants which arrived prior to the Cambrian and then the Cambrian swarming with life in the seas. Clear now?

I need to be more clear I think. I am not talking about the Precambrian era where fossils are very rare and almost absent near the beginning of Earth's history. I am talking about the 400 million years between the Cambrian and the first appearance of angiosperms. Those 400 million years have a very rich fossil record, including a whole bunch of plants that aren't angiosperms. You are proposing that angiosperms, as one of the most widespread and abundant organisms on the planet, left no trace in the fossil record anywhere in the world for 400 million years while other plants and animals appear there. I want you to provide some reasoning for why that is more likely than the idea that angiosperms didn't arise before sea creatures. Remember, lots of fossils exist in those 400 million years including a whole lot of different plants, so you need to explain why they show up but angiosperms don't.

I am saying that all trace of them was lost in the earliest surface of the earth prior to the Cambrian.

Or are you arguing that they were completely wiped, left a 400Ma gap and then evolved again?

Yes.

You missed this question I think:

1. What is your reasoning for supposing that this passage does not refer to "the first terrestrial animals but a very general list"?

And you didn't answer this one really:

2. What is your reasoning for saying that this passage indicates a "large amount of time" prior to the cattle being created? I know the fossil record indicates lots of time prior to cattle. I'm asking what support you have that the bible is saying there was a large amount of time prior to cattle but after the advent of other land animals.

It doesn't have to. It is giving a run down on a chronological order in the way life was created. First the plants before the Cambrian, 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. We then move to the Cenozoic period.

Not too easy, I think. Genesis seems pretty clear when it refers to "every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind." It seems reasonable to think that "every living thing" in the water includes mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and whales. But of course the fossil record tells us that land animals predate them by hundreds of millions of years. Same for the birds. They appeared after land animals, not before them as Genesis suggests. So how would you explain these discrepancies? Do you again propose that in each case their fossil record disappeared for some reason in an otherwise rich fossil record? It is your prerogative to do so but it does not carry the same weight as a far more parsimonious assessment. Remember that parsimony means making as few unfounded assumptions as possible. My position is based on the fact that we have no examples of a fossil lineage being pushed back as far as you require. It is also based on the fact that the fossil record wherein these proposed gaps occur is otherwise well stocked. In both cases you are assuming the opposite, an assumption which is unfounded in data.

See above.

We have established that Genesis is indeed meant to be telling us the chronological order in which life arose. You agreed that it tells us that angiosperms arose prior to life in the sea. This also means that every sea creature and every bird should appear in the fossil record prior to land animals. This is unambiguously not what the fossil record shows. Please address these discrepancies specifically.

Perhaps it would make things clearer if we just number the order of creation in Genesis vs the order of appearance in the fossil record.

Genesis
1. Land plants and angiosperms
2. Every sea creature, every bird
3. land animals and humans

Fossil record
1. Aquatic organisms, but no derived tetrapods like mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs or whales.
2. Terrestrial organisms including plants, arthropods and early tetrapods
3. Angiosperms, birds
4. Humans, whales

Genesis:
1. Plants and flowering trees. Precambrian
2. Life (all phyla alive today plus some) swarming in the seas which is the Cambrian, moving to the Silurian era, to the Devonian and on to the Mesozoic period, which includes birds.
3. Cattle and other beasts and man. The Cenozoic period

These accounts simply don't allign.

But they do other than the plants which while not having any fossil evidence we do have supportive evidence.

I don't see how this addresses the problem I raised. Genesis says that land animals and humans were created on the same day, after birds. The fossil record says land animals arose, then birds appeared, then humans. How do you resolve this discrepancy?

See above.

I want to say that while we disagree on our positions you and Athee (I don't know how to accent the e on a chromebook) are my favorite posters on the opposing side. You both are very respectful and cordial, thanks to the both of you.

 

[Davian]

...
My point then is that the time it is too late is when you are dead.

Why is it too late when you are dead?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Made a couple edits after rereading.

I apologize that this was so long in coming. Also, Sorry, this wasn't your fault because I read it and concluded it sounded logical and was going to say that and I must have lost it somehow. It does sound reasonable and I will have to look into it further. Thanks.

Glad to hear it.

Did you die? Just lightening the mood hopefully there. Seriously though, IMHO, God has a timing that we just don't always understand. For instance, Anthony Flew, he spent a great deal of time and effort denouncing the Christian God and yet very late in life he had his spiritual eyes opened. He was in his eighties when this occurred which after being an avid atheist for so long and his age people had a hard time believing his transformation. My point then is that the time it is too late is when you are dead.

I have not died as far as I am aware, so I suppose it is possible that I will get my sign one day.

I think he was talking about the transfiguration and the Holy Spirit.

I still am not convinced of this interpretation, but I am no biblical scholar. Why is he telling his followers to be constantly vigilant and that some of them will still be alive when this event happens if he's referring to something a couple months down the line (I don't know the specific amount of time from when he made this prophesy to the transfiguration)?

I do, I don't however feel it changed his heart. In his heart he would still have let the Jews go, but he would have went after them just the same as he actually did but this would have taken place before God did all He wanted to do.

I don't think he could have countered God's judgement, no one can. That being said, I don't think he changed his heart but cemented it at the time so that all that God wished to be done could be done.

Was it his true free will? Can we know? We know that he was already hardened and only "softened" his heart momentarily and then it would return to the hardened state. So if God hardened it in the "softened" moment, was it a true softening of the heart if time and time again he would harden it after this momentary lapse of his own will?

So in the end you agree that God does in some instances override free will (whatever the justification might be) to achieve his goals. Yes or no (plus whatever additional stuff you want of course)?

How is that different than forcing worship and love? It is clear that God doesn't wish to force anyone to worship Him. So if He forced everyone's will all the time to make them worship Him how does that produce true worship and love?

I'm not suggesting that God just mind control everyone to love him. Note that I asked why he doesn't intervene in cases where someone cannot otherwise be saved. We have established that God is willing to subvert free will to achieve his ends, so why not do so to save a soul that is otherwise damned? This question becomes more difficult for you to answer when we consider your stances on baby killing. According to you God has reaped their souls early before they have the chance to choose wrong. If it is acceptable to remove that option of choosing evil for thousands of babies (or trillions if we count all babies who have died) then it is inconsistent not to extend the same mercy to souls he knows cannot otherwise be saved.

Let me answer first before making a counter point. If there was no good reason such as debilitating conditions of the child (you did say perfect health right?) and no adverse reason for them not to take it I would have to consider having them by law to take it. I would follow legal venues to provide the medicine to my child. Having said that, nothing is as black and white as you seem to see it. Perhaps, they are desperately depressed and that is why and they go afterward and kill themselves, or worse yet, they are mentally troubled and cause pain and suffering to others by living on. My point, is that as humans we don't know how our actions concerning another impacts their lives or the lives of those their lives touch. We don't have all the information it takes to determine how one life affects others or their own and only God has that information. So while it might be thought that it is much kinder and loving to make my child take the medicine it might have been the best outcome rather than let them kill themselves in a more painful and torturous way, or even that they would go on and cause such pain in suffering in another's life.

Would you really limit yourself to legal means if it meant letting your child die? Imagine your child is 100% committed to homoeopathy and thinks mainstream medicine is to be avoided at all costs. They are within their rights to refuse real medicine and are not exhibiting an actual mental pathology, so you really have no legal recourse. They aren't suicidal, they are just really against mainstream medicine. Would you save them or let them choose to die because they don't believe the right thing? Loving your child as you do, would your desire for them to choose the right path on their own allow you to let them die?

I think for this analogy to remain as applicable as possible to the idea of salvation and free will and whatnot, suicidal tendencies don't make much sense. Medically saved = spiritually saved. Homoeopathy = non-Christian belief/atheism. I can't really see how being suicidal or homicidal fits in here. Suicidal would have to equate to wanting to be damned. Homicidal would have to equate to wanting others damned. This doesn't really make sense. Once your soul is saved, you aren't going to be inclined/able to reverse that, nor would you go about trying to get other people damned.

If you make a choice due to reasons that convince you by way of reason and experience is that not normal and usual but if you are brought to your knees in misery and suffering how free is that compared to the choice being due to reasoning? If someone sits here and gives me their reasons for belief for instance that there is no God I am in full faculty of my will but if someone is cutting off my fingers one by one and claiming that they are god and can stop the suffering if only I worship them I think that is more in line with subverting my will than the reasoning is. Don't you agree?

I agree that finger cutting would be more coercion than convincing, but I don't think your analogy fits the situation. Would you really think that they were God or would you think they were a psycho cutting off your fingers? Anyone with a knife can cut off fingers. The points is that God isn't just tormenting the Egyptians to make them believe in his power, he's tormenting them in a way only God could do. Maybe Pharaoh relents because he wants the plagues to stop, but does that mean he is any less convinced that he is being punished by a god? You seem to be saying that signs and wonders don't violate free will if they're positive but do violate free will if they're negative and I don't really see the distinction.

All this does is show the differences between actually knowing God exists and has the ability to do this as well as creating a orderly and amazing universe vs. someone who doesn't know He exists and has no reason (in their estimation) to believe that this could really happen. When I read about talking snakes and horses prior to God revealing Himself, I was just the same way. I don't blame you for your disbelief in horses (actually it was a donkey) or snakes talking, I've been there myself. Which brings me to this question, if God did create that sign that you so desire to be able to believe, would you then believe that god really could talk through a donkey or that there really is an evil being that can take the form of a snake and talk?

If you recall, the point of this line of discussion is whether it is possible to make inferences about the past based on the present. I didn't really mean to select an actual biblical example, hence the switch to eggplants. I was disputing your claim that it was impossible to make any inferences about what was going on in the past, specifically in reference to a race of invariably evil people.

If God did convince me he were real then I don't see why I wouldn't believe he could talk through a donkey if he wished.

And you with the assertion that no logical explanation is possible. Which seems more open-minded and fair minded? I think to claim that there would be no possible logical or most importantly moral explanation, one that would be the best possible outcome knowing all the information of past and future actions involved is only based on your own bias and close-mindedness towards God. You feel that you have somehow shown how unlikely that is because I haven't satisfied your idea of what a good and logical reason might be, but I'm not God and I don't have the information that God has. So to say you have been successful in your argumentation against my reasons not comporting with reality would seem rather an empty success when it is not God you are arguing with but just little ol' me.

Once we get to the point where you are saying that there must be a reason even if you can't think of one, we have hit faith bedrock. But this leads to the question of the utility of faith in determining truth. It seems to me that once we are relying on faith rather than data, we all but lose the ability to know if we are approaching the truth or not. With data we can see how well our ideas fit whereas with faith we must simply believe that our ideas are correct. Thoughts?

Really? How would you know? Maybe it is more important to those people that they actually lived rather than not. Perhaps God wanted five thousand babies with Him rather than just five. In fact, that seems more reasonable to have more with Him rather than just a few.

Numbers...not just five in heaven rather five thousand seems a pretty good outcome.


Five thousand in heaven rather than five...I think it speaks for itself.

According to this logic, wouldn't it make the most sense to just kill as many babies as possible without causing the population to collapse? Everyone goes to heaven that way. If five thousand is better than five, shouldn't billions be better than five thousand?

And you missed a little bit of the problem I think. It's not just the baby souls involved. I'm asking how it could be more merciful to let thousands of souls of the evil nations go to hell than to kill a few babies whose souls go to Heaven and prevent all those souls from being lost.

I am only asserting that we are not God and can't be? I think it is rather obvious is it not? God is the only being without sin. Angels are the only beings that had one chance at redemption and if they chose to go with God they made that eternal choice and were then sin free but we as humans are chosen to live this life. To know all sorts of kinds of love, to know how it feels to create, how it feels to be a mother or father...a grandmother or grandfather. To live in another world to experience things that angels only get to see fleetingly if at all. Angels are not considered in the same level (for lack of a better term)than humans. There is definitely more risk in being a human but far more to gain. There are many many passages that say that God has a perfect nature, we don't just because we are created. Sinlessness is not something that God does but is. He didn't create sinlessness but is perfect in nature, we are not perfect in nature and can't be because we are created rather than just being perfect and sin free. I want to convey this context but it seems you are not understanding what I am saying and I don't know in what way to express it to allow comprehension.

I understand what you're saying, but I want you to support your position. You have asserted that being created and having a sinless nature are mutually exclusive. Why? Can you supply any scriptural support for the claim that we can't be sinless because we were created?

I'm not proposing that God make us Gods, merely that he create us with the same nature he has, one for which sin is impossible. On what basis do you claim that God's omnipotence is limited in such a way as to prevent him creating us thusly? Again, do you have any scriptural support for this?

It was they that made it evil?

Do you mean then that these souls would be evil regardless of the culture into which they were born?

What you are asking is that we humans must be like God in nature when we can't. It is like a square circle...impossible.

You haven't established this. What prevents God from creating us with a nature like his own that would prevent us from sinning? He's not giving us immortality, omniscience or omnipotence. Just a nature that ins't compatible with sin. What scriptural support do you have for your claim?

Judging me?

Just acknowledging that we have established something.

If God knows what their choice would be if their lives were lived out and He knew that only 1/3 of them would chose to accept redemption and 2/3 would not; is it wrong of God to allow them a free pass to heaven? Or...if all of the babies would chose to accept redemption anyway and God just took them early, is that wrong of God? It seems you are a victim of black and white thinking, you seem to be saying that if God really wants us to have free will in all the purpose of the existence of humans but at times takes away that free will then that means it really isn't important to Him at all. I disagree, I think that a good and moral God may have reasons for the greatest good for all humanity that some are taken early and are stopped from living out their choices, some who would have gone to hell were saved from it and others that would in life are rewarded early does not mean that free will is not important if not of great importance to God. How does subverting some free will mean free will is not of utmost importance to God for His plan for mankind?

Okay, I think you have at last agreed that killing babies (regardless of the reasons involved) before they can choose good or evil does indeed violate their free will. Is this correct? A clean "yes" or "no" would be appreciated, along with whatever you feel the need to add.

I am not saying that this violation of free will means that God doesn't value free will. I'm saying that this regular (every time a baby dies) violation of free will means that allowing us to choose good or evil isn't so important to God that he will never bypass that choice to achieve his goals.

This leads to the question I've asked before. If God is willing to subvert free will to achieve his goals, why isn't he willing to do it in order to save the souls of his beloved children that would otherwise be lost?

There was a time that it was necessary, after the life, death and resurrection of Christ the dynamics of earth and salvation changed.

Fair enough. I think that's about as far as my bible skills can take me here.

You are misinterpreting the passage and then asking me to accept it and answer the question. That is like telling me that 2+2=5 now tell me why? It isn't so I can't. This is the same case. He says there will be a time when we might have to chose Him if those we love are against our faith in Him. We are to love God above all things and that includes people. God, family, friends and all "things" after that. That doesn't mean that He expects someone to leave your child or anything detrimental to them. There is a passage that speaks about a time in the end of days that some families will be against each other even among children and parents but this is between adults and has everything to do with some authority making all people take the mark of the anti-Christ if they wish to eat. So at this time some unbelieving family members might have to give up their families to eat and buy. I don't know how much you have really studied all this so I don't know how much you are aware of really.

Is he saying that you should value your relationship with him more than you value your relationship with your children? Do you value your relationship with him more than with your children?

Data is not completely lacking.

Oxygen may have filled Earth's atmosphere hundreds of millions of years earlier than previously thought, suggesting that sunlight-dependent life akin to modern plants evolved very early in Earth's history, a new study finds.

'Almost certainly biological'

All in all, the researchers suggest atmospheric oxygen levels 3 billion years ago were about 100,000 times higher than what can be explained by regular chemical reactions in Earth's atmosphere. "That suggests the source of this oxygen was almost certainly biological," Crowe said.

"It's exciting that it took a relatively short time for oxygenic photosynthesis to evolve on Earth," Crowe added. "It means that it could happen on other planets on Earth, expanding the number of worlds that could've developed oxygenated atmospheres and complex oxygen-breathing life."

Future research can look for similarly aged rocks from other places, both on and outside Earth, to confirm these findings. "Research could also look at earlier rocks," Crowe said. "Chances are, if there was oxygen 3 billion years ago, there was likely oxygen production some time before as well. How far back does it go?"

http://www.livescience.com/39938-earth-had-oxygen-earlier.html

You've mentioned this before, but I don't see how it supports the idea that angiosperms were actually among the first organisms as Genesis claims.

"Our research shows that land plants and fungi evolved much earlier than previously thought — before the Snowball Earth and Cambrian Explosion events — suggesting their presence could have had a profound effect on the climate and the evolution of life on Earth," says Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist and leader of the Penn State research team that performed the study.

Hedges and his research team made their surprising discoveries about the early appearance on Earth of the first land plants and fungi by studying as many of the genes as possible of their descendants — the species of plants and fungi living today. They began by sifting through their molecular fingerprints — the unique sequences of amino-acid building blocks — in many thousands of genes from hundreds of species archived in the public gene-sequence databases.

http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2001-news/Hedges8-2001.htm

So as you can see there is support for my hypothesis, since they don't have the earliest surface of earth, they are finding evidence through other means.

Land plants may have appeared earlier than supposed, but this is nowhere near supporting the Precambrian existence of angiosperms and seed-bearing plants. Using similar methods to the study you linked wherein land plants were said to have appeared around 700Ma, this study on angiosperms gives a max date of about 275Ma although most of the methods yielded dates of around 180Ma. If you are willing to accept molecular dates that push the origin of land plants back, you should be willing to accept molecular dates that show angiosperms were not around anywhere near the Precambrian as would be necessary for Genesis to be accurate.

I meant life as in animal and not plant when I first mentioned all this. I think I've tried to clear this up quite a few times. There are the plants which arrived prior to the Cambrian and then the Cambrian swarming with life in the seas. Clear now?

Sufficient.

I am saying that all trace of them was lost in the earliest surface of the earth prior to the Cambrian.

Yes.

Interesting. However it is based on no actual evidence and runs counter to the available evidence. Remember that the molecular clocks suggest a maximum age of 275Ma for angiosperms, although it's probably more like 180Ma.

It doesn't have to. It is giving a run down on a chronological order in the way life was created. First the plants before the Cambrian, 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. We then move to the Cenozoic period.

Okay, I get the order you're trying to establish here, but I don't see how it aligns with what Genesis actually says. So let's try to simplify and you can support your interpretation in a very clear, direct way.

1. Explain why "every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it" does not include whales, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs etc.

2. Explain why "Let the earth bring forth living creatures" does not refer to the creation of land animals in general.

Genesis:
1. Plants and flowering trees. Precambrian
2. Life (all phyla alive today plus some) swarming in the seas which is the Cambrian, moving to the Silurian era, to the Devonian and on to the Mesozoic period, which includes birds.
3. Cattle and other beasts and man. The Cenozoic period
But they do other than the plants which while not having any fossil evidence we do have supportive evidence.

To be clear, you do not have any evidence supporting the Precambrian existence of angiosperms and both the fossil and molecular evidence points away from that conclusion.

I want to say that while we disagree on our positions you and Athee (I don't know how to accent the e on a chromebook) are my favorite posters on the opposing side. You both are very respectful and cordial, thanks to the both of you.

There are far too many posters on this site that either can't or don't care enough to keep their discourse civil. I used to indulge in such childishness when I felt provoked, but it really bugs me and I now do my best not to be one of those people. You do a good job of that too, which I appreciate.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think in a sense you are correct. I do think that science will fill those gaps and that the explanation will turn out to be a natural one. That said the position I hold is, I think, more intellectually honest. I am saying, I don't know how it happened and as long as I don't know I am going to hold the belief tentatively. It seems to me that often believers will say, since has no explanation therefore we know God did it. I don't know that the explanation for the universe or for abiogenisis is going to be a natural one. It could be what we would call a supernatural explanation, but until there is a reason to conclude this then I will remain agnostic. That said I do lean towards a natural explanation for these things because every time in the past that anyone has claimed something is happening in as a result of God working in the natural world, this has turned out to not be the case. This does not mean I am justified in saying, there is no possibility that there is a supernatural explanation, but I think it does justify leaning towards a natural one.

You claim that every time in the past that someone has used the "god of the gaps" argument that there has been a natural explanation for it, could you give some examples? First of all, we live in a universe that is a physical realm, there are physical laws that in my worldview have been ordained by the Christian God; these laws rule the universe and its workings. How it works does not answer how it came to work that way. Modern science itself began in the Christian worldview that we have a universe that can be comprehended and humans that can understand it, that it was created by a logical and reasoned intelligence and in being created as such will have reason and purpose in its workings. Men of science in times past relied on this to set up experimental testings based on knowing that there was reason and purpose behind those elements of the universe. That you feel a natural cause is behind it all, is begging the question...all there is is natural and so a natural explanation is all that is needed.

I don't see how it is the same begging of the question. I am not assuming that scientific explanations exist and therefore they can explain the phenomenon. They clearly do exist and are demonstrable, assumption is that they will continue to explain things. You are saying a supernatural being exists, one that most people in the world don't believe exists and positing him as an explanation and using the phenomenon in questions, that needs explaining, as evidence that your God exists. To me this is begging the question in a way that my position is not. Thoughts?

I answered this above in part. The second part: Actually, the majority of people in the world do believe in some sort of Supreme being. The largest religion is Christianity. Billions of people believe the Christian God exists, it is hardly some fringe belief system out there. You claim there is no natural evidence for God but all natural evidence is actually evidence of God but it is the interpretation of that evidence where a non-believer goes wrong. They look at nature and think that nature itself created all but in reality God created all nature. You look at the natural world and the laws and workings of it and conclude that is all there is to it, I look at the natural world and see the laws and the workings of it and conclude that the reality of the universe are the evidence that God has given us to know reason and intelligence was behind it all.

What specifically is it that you think could not happen by chance + time? Is it the creation of single celled organisms or the creation of components that could evolve into those organisms? I guess I am curious what you mean when you say abiogenisis

This definition is what is commonly used: Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules.

It comes down to what is the best explanation for life and the elements needed for life to occur. I don't find it convincing to make unsubstantiated claims to explain a phenomenal amount of necessities that allow not only life but order from which it arises.

Some of these unsubstantiated claims are:
1. Life comes from non-living matter.
2. That other universes can explain the fine tuning of this universe.
3. That the appearance of design is an illusion.

And no one on earth has an inkling that this evil god Ed exists, has nothing that provides any notion of him or even has heard the name? If an evil god did create the universe how would do you explain love, altruism, morality and goodness?

No one has any notionnel him because it serves his purposes to be hidden. We experience goodness, altruism, hope, morality etc so that in contrast we can truly understand badness, selfishness, despair and immorality etc. This being wants the pain of loss to be greatly multiplied by our experience of good things.
How have you ruled out this possibility?

In the Christian worldview "badness", selfishness, despair and immorality are all the lack of goodness, selflessness, hope and morality. They exist only when the goodness, selflessness, hope and morality are in absence. Badness, selfishness, despair and immorality don't exist unless and until goodness, selflessness, hope and morality are taken away. There is a Bible that has been around for a long time that gives us information of the Christian God. Whether or not you believe it to be factual or not, it is information concerning many facets of the God of Abraham and the world we live in.

Maybe God thinks he is uncreated but he is honestly mistaken about this. This means he isn't lying but is just in error.

No, we aren't just doing with possibilities you would accept we are trying to rule out all logically possible options as this was the claim made.

What makes it logical? Why is a figment of your imagination created to imply that just any claim is equal to mine when my claim is backed by billions of people believing they have evidence to support theirs? Not only that but a belief that has evidence outside of itself that support it?

I think maybe you misread my comment. I was suggesting a set of rules, that is, a set of relationships between the values that make them non random. For example I would say it is logically impossible for God to have created a universe with matter in which a specific rock and be a rock and a non rock in the same place at the same time and in the same way. This law of non contradiction ses to be an inherent property of matter, or put another way it is a rule about the relationship between matter and the law of non contradiction. I don't think we need to posit any lawgiver or rule maker to establish these.

I agree that it would be logically impossible for God to have created a universe where the laws of logic were not in force.

Where do we find this inherent property of matter? Where in a rock does the law of non-contradiction arise? How does a rock inherently contain this law? IF there were no rocks at all, would the law of contradiction no longer exist? If there was no matter at all, would the law of contradiction no longer exist?

If God is the one who created the laws of logic, do you think he could have created them differently? Could he have made a rock both be a rock and not be a rock in the same way at the same time and in the same place?

You misunderstand, God didn't create the laws of logic but is the logic behind the laws. The mind of God being discovered through our own minds.



The formating did some odd things to your post and I think you may have meant to answer this but it got moved on you or some such

To a degree. What I am trying to post out is that you believe that God created beings who can have free will, can be with him in heaven and will not ever, nor have they ever chosen to sin. This is a proof of concept that good could indeed have done this with humans.

You missed the point where I said that there was one occasion where choosing was available to humans and angels made the world as it is. The angels that chose to go against God could no longer stay in heaven...they sinned against God. The ones that didn't go against God have free will and no sin because they personally made the choice. They do not reproduce, their decision was final just like ours is but they are eternally saved and sinless because they made that choice personally for an eternity. We however, are not eternally placed on this earth. We reproduce and in doing so each person has the same responsibility to choose. However, unlike the angels that chose once and are already in heaven and are now covered by God's grace for an eternity we live on earth and each person, in each generation onward from the very beginning has this choice to make. We reproduce so we pass on the same nature we are born with to the next generation and they must choose for themselves.

This means that God had to actually want sin in the world for some reason. God, in essence, created sin as part of his plan. So why would we call a being good of it had the option of creating humans in Paradise but chose instead to make them suffer and to condemn most of them to a he'll, that we are told wasn't built for them in the first place?

He wanted us to live in this universe, on this earth and to do so created us humans and self reproducing to multiply and learn about the beauty of love, hope, faith, laughter and a multitude of experiences that angels never get to participate in.

Sure, a one time event that happened a bunch of times, once for Adam, once for Eve, once for each of the angels and once for each of the (now) demons. Even if this is true, the point is that God can and absolutely has created being with free will, who will never choose sin, which makes it hard to justify all the suffering we see.

They did chose sin. Some were banned from Heaven...did you forget? The only difference is that they don't reproduce and give a new generation with a sin nature that needs to be redeemed.

I agree that she knew she was supposed to do what God told her and don't do what he told her not to. But I think k you are smuggling in your own awareness of right and wrong I to your interpretation. She may have know that she was not supposed to eat the fruit but she didn't know that disobedience was a "wrong". If she didn't have this awareness how can we say that she freely chose to do wrong?

She didn't choose to do wrong, she chose to disobey. She had the awareness that she should obey and that she shouldn't disobey. She said so. A child knows from a position of trust of its parents (unless the parent has caused them to distrust them)to know to obey their parents. They may not know exactly why they should obey but they know that to obey is what you do if you trust someone's guidance. If a parent says to a child, "never go into the street, you could get hit by a car and die." A two year old doesn't understand what to die means but He/She obeys because they know from the instructions that it is something they should not do.

This is an odd bit because God says you will die and then they don't? Now you can say it is about spiritual death but then we are back to the same problem.. They would have no way of knowing what spiritual death meant or how it happened or what the consequences would be. Without this how can we say that they are making a free will choice? Yes they freely chose to disobey but if they had no knowledge that it was "wrong" to do so then how is it a sin?


So again, eve has no knowledge of good and evil all she knows is that there is this really amazing (how does she determin this if she doesn't know what good is?) being that has provided for her. She wants to be as much like him as possible... The ultimate WWJD experience, except WWGD I guess and without any knowledge that it is sinful to do so, tries to be like him. And this merits not only her spiritual death but the spiritual death of the entire race?

See above.

I guess the other possibility is that this whole story is just a myth made up to describe the truths about the way a certain primitive people accounted for human life and it was never meant to be taken as history.

Which is more likely, that this is a myth or that a good and morally perfect being decided to punish not only Eve but all her decendants for making a decision (in a situation he created and allowed) with no knowledge of what the choice entailed or its consequences?

Punishment is not for what Eve did, it just set up the nature of sin in people which is inherited in following generations.

This is interesting. It is the inverse of the Ed argument from earlier. The good God creates and allows evil so that people can better understand good, while Ed allows good so that people better understand evil. How do we know which is the case?
But even if you are right it means that it is all part of God's plan that eve would fail, and everyone would be punished for something they didn't choose, and that gods interventions to solve the problem he created would fail over and over (but of course he planned this too) so that eventually he could kill himself (sort of, for a couple days) so that he could forgive the people for doing what he created them to do...

I think I addressed this earlier in this post.

As I said above this means that God can and has created beings that you said earlier were like little gods and asserted several times that God could not do this.


Not at all. If God sime created us with the ability to choose sin but with natives that would never do so, like the angles, then there would be no issue.

Hopefully I have made this clearer above.

one is biblically supported so fair enough from your world view. Overzealous question by me :/

OK.

I would suggest that while we may disagree on the nuances that I could probably get pretty close to your belief about the purpose of the old testament laws. I imagine you see them as posting towards Jesus, that they were impossible to keep perfectly to show us how we need God to cover our sins, that we can't do it by our own works. You might include that the sacrifices used to purify Israel of past and future sin find thier fulfilment in Jesus... Am I close?
Close or not this doesn't actually address the question I was asking. You said the only way a person can be forgiven by God is for God to die for them. In addition to all the other systems proposed which are all logically valid, the fact that old testament news were forgiven by animal sacrifice is an example where you are simply incorrect and it is from your own belief system. You could argue I suppose that in some mystical way the animals being sacrificed were in some real way actually Jesus but I think we both would agree that is a bit of a reach. Thus we are left with the initial question. Aside from simply asserting it, how have you made the determination that the only way to be reconciled with God is by child (divine of course) sacrifice?

This seems logical until you realize they were not forgiven by animal sacrifice, they were forgiven because they understood the coming of the Messiah.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness . . . . Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. . . . Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (Romans 4:1–5, 9–10, 16)
How is one saved: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who practiced the animal sacrifice were honoring what Christ would do for them in the future.

This is true you didn't. The point was that God has absolutely told his people to go out and kill everyone in another people group.

Do you believe it is unfair and immoral for a Being that created people to reward those that do no harm to others and follow His dictates and to punish those who are evil and do great harm to others and do not follow His dictates? It wasn't the group just being "the group" or the ethnicity of the group but the harm they caused others that was being punished. God doesn't say that He will wait until the end of days to cast judgement against those who do evil things. He does say that He will be patient and long suffering so that people can change their actions and do evil no more. God didn't immediately wipe them out. It was years and years of their attacking the Jews and other nations before God said enough and cast judgement against them.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by evil... Um... What do you mean?

The absence of goodness. The action of depravity and harm against others without just cause.

Well you have yet to demonstrate that my concept of harm is problematic for deriving morality so you would need to do that at least, before telling me my thoughts on morality are irrelevant.

I am not saying that your concept of harm is problematic in establishing morality, it just comes in short of what is moral and what is not. Someone can be harmed, even killed for a moral reason. If that is true, then harm can not be the absolute criteria for morality.

Moreover, if you define evil as that which is contrary to the will of God (even though the whole plan which includes evil is proceeding the way he willed it) then by definition anything God does can't be evil and I don't think that is very helpful. It would mean that if tomorrow God decided that writing in pen was immoral then so it would be, or of he decided that domestic abuse is moral then it would be. If however, you agree with me that harming humans is not good then we have sufficient agreement for my evaluation of God's actions to be worth thinking about.

I define it as the absence of goodness or if you wish for harm to be included it would be an absence of goodness resulting in the harm of others without justifiable reason.

Sure but the Jews were never in danger. God could have magically transported all thier enemies to another habitable planet or a million other possible solutions that didn't involve killing men, women and children and infants and foetuses. To aay the Jews were acting in self defence with God on thier side is like saying I am justified in shooting a toddler to death because he came at me holding a knife!

So you are saying that God should have provided a supernatural solution to a natural occurrence. You are not saying that defending the Jews against an evil and harmful threat is wrong, He just went about it the wrong way?

Actually the truth is that I agree with you. I think the Jews were acting itself defence, I think they had to attack neighbours be use otherwise they would have been attacked or taken over themselves. I believe this because I don't think there was a God fighting for them. I think thier claims are like all the other claims of all the other countries that say a God is on thier side.

You can understand that they would be wiped out, good. You just don't like the way God defended the Jews or that He cast judgement on an evil people.

Again what is more likely, that the all powerful, loving, merciful God of the cosmos, who would later kill his own son to make a way for people just like the amalakites, would slaughter them all, down to the infants who had yet had no chance to make any free will choice of moral significance (interesting parallel between eve with no knowledge of good and evil and an infant by the way),
Or
That people simply made it up like pretty much every people group both at thier time and before them.?

You forget what the choice is all about, the ultimate prize...living an eternity in a world where there is no evil, no suffering, no pain with God. So why is it bad that these babies went immediately to heaven?

Absolutly not, you can/should for sure ask me the tough questions, just be sure to try to pick out the central point in the ones coming your way and respond! I will try to do the same as I recognize that I don't always do this either

I was telling AC in my response to him that the two of you are my favorite posters (that have posted to me) on the opposing side. You are both respectful and cordial. Both of you make your case without personal attacks which I really appreciate. So thank you for your maturity and openness.

You keep saying that my position is that the only arbiter of Moritz is community and culture... This will be something like the 5th time I have said, yes moraliry is culturally constructed,
But
There are other elements as well, part of it is based on what know you have. If you think women are less value than men, as the Bible definitely does, then it is morally not to treat them equally.

I will do my best not to misrepresent your view. Now about the Bible claiming women are of less value:

10 ¶Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothingis silk and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a womanthat feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates

and:
Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, ias to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, jthat your prayers may not be hindered.

And:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is 1neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Jesus treated women with honor and love. I understand there are passages that talk about how women in the culture were being treated but it seems that God created both equally and both are to be honored.

If you understand that this is not the case that women are just as valuable as human beings as males then it is immoral to treat them unequally. I would also add that some elements of our morality are explained by an evolutionary context.
Now that we are clear the problem is that of God exists as you perceive him then he has all possible knowledge and so has no excuse for the rules described in his holy book that you yourself word call immoral. Perhaps this is why you keep leaving the importance of knowledge out of your straw man of my position, because it is precisely the element which is most problematic for your belief that good is good and moral in an objective, unchanging way.

Knowledge? I'm lost?

I do agree here although I would not call it slavery but indentured servitude, or something similar.


Could you provide me with the reference for not being allowed to take slaves against their will.. I can't find it and it would cause me to rethink my position on this.

Exodus 21:16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

I struggle to see how you can think kn that taking people in the aftermath of a war, and then making them salves is moral. I get that this is what the Bible says but do you truly agree? Look at what the law says about how you can treat slaves, beating them, sleeping with them, giving them to your son to sleep with, holding thier families hostage, passing them on as property along with your estate. If someone did that to you and yours, would you consider it good and moral of them?
Now you are possibly going to reply... But what would you have them do with these people... Leave them to die!?
No but they could have taken them on as household labour, indentured servants, craftspeople working for the profit of the family etc all of these could be accomplished without the beatings, sex slavery etc.

They did make them household labor, they did having them working for the family and yest they did give young women captured to be wives for their sons. There is nothing in the Bible that makes the claim that these young women were forced to marry and sleep with the sons immediately and not without a period of adjustment. The culture of the time was that if a woman was alone it was the worst possible position to be in. There was no money, no home, nothing. When these young women married into the Jewish families they were treated as daughters. No where does it say they were sex slaves. It was also unlawful for a man to force a women to marry him. So if the young women refused to wed, she would probably be placed in the household for cleaning or cooking or tending to children.

Again what is more likely. The all good, all knowing, loving, merciful God of the universe thinks it is within the bounds of sinless living to own other humans as property that you can beat.
Or
The people in power who were benefiting financially from having slaves, wrote down that it was OK to have slaves because God says so (even if he didn't)?

Most other nations could kill their slaves without recourse. I'm not saying that beating a slave in anyway is just or moral and I don't think that is what is being communicated, but that they are not to be beat.

But he did. Think of it this way... God is writing his book on how to live perfect and sinless lives. So he notices that people made in his image are owning other people made in his image and so he says in his book. Hey guys it is wrong to own other people as property, don't do it. This is what condemning it would look like. It could be sliced in there with the other super important ones about mixed fabrics and seafood
What we actually find is condoning it by saying... Go ahead and take and make salves but here are a few rules.

As always though I think people made this stuff up, I don't think your God ever said anything like this and so I underway you are having a hard time justifying it.

We have acknowledged that taking captives of the old, young, weak and women in general would be a necessity if war had wiped out their way of life. There were only two options, let them die or take them in. We also know that the young women who were virgins (and they would be known by their apparel and no need for sleeping with them to find out) would be allowed to marry into the Jewish nation. Treated as daughter among them. There is no mention of any old or weak, or children being mistreated at all. The only mention is this instruction that if a slave is beaten to death, the owner should be killed. An eye for an eye.
"If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, 19if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.…if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.

What we see here is the same punishment for free man and slave. Do you have any moral outrage for the quarreling man?

I am not blind I just think the all powerful God of the universe could do better than killing thier support structure and then giving them as property to his people, after which he allows them to be abused because "the are property".

We obviously see it differently. I see a slave being compensated in the same way the free man is under the same circumstances.

No worries, I do OK on the phone although it is difficult for sure.
So to answer your objection I think the answer to most of your questions is that, no someone is not living because they say they are, it yes they are loving because the actions they take align with the commonly agreed on definition of what it is to be loving. Or they are selfish to the extent that thier actions conform to what is commonly entailed in the definition of selfishness. This is absolutely an acceptable response to the euthyphro if you don't believe in a God. Where it is tricky for you I think, is that you realize that if God's nature is good because he says it is, then goodness (and morality) become subjective and changable it if you say his nature is good because if aligns with an external standard of goodness then God is not the author of goodness and is not free to define it. It's a tricky question for the believer for sure and one that is worth thinking about. I will look forward to your next cracks at it

This is another topic that would need to be fleshed out and take a great deal of time to explain. I am beginning to think that we need to prioritize the volume of this discourse because I am trying to discuss multiple points within your posts as well as several other posters including AC posts which are incredibly long as well. I'm only being able to manage one or the other of you on any one day, let alone trying to get to the smaller posts. I'm not complaining mind you, just not wanting to add on another in depth question to the already abundant ones we are discussing.

Possibly, what do you mean by objective versus absolute?

Objective is more in line with not influenced by personal bias or opinion. Absolute is something that can not be diminished in any way, it is exists independently without any relation to other things. It is fixed and can not change.

Well of you only see harm as a physical thing then I think you could do with a more nuanced view of harm. But even if you disagree we are discussing the foundations for my system of morality, so the definition I use is pretty important!
If you want to question my use of the term feel free to do so, or to provide another example of morality that doesn't involve harm.

You have already admitted that there are times when harm can be moral, have you not? Also, if someone believes that killing all Jews is a moral thing to do and by your definition killing is harm so do you have the right considering you feel it is wrong to tell them it is wrong and immoral?

Will do... Have to run will edit later to find ish this off.
I'm back... Did you miss me?
Anyway yes you are talking on many fronts and putting time into each and do a pretty good job of it too

I didn't miss you because I wasn't on but if I were I would have. Thanks for the encouragement. Today it is a balm.

Well we are talking about competing spiritual claims. You say Yahweh they say Allah, how do we tell who if anyone is correct.

We determine it with reason as with any question. Does the Quran make the same claims, does it worship the same God, does it stand up to scrutiny between the Bible and itself.

So what made you decide against Odin or Ra or Jupiter?
Is it possible that the reason you rejected other religions is informed by your cultural context? If you grow up in a place where everyone believes that the only way to be right with God is for his to forgive you for free, when you encounter a works based model it will probably seem non-intuitive to you, making it more likely you will reject it, even though it is logically just as valid as a grace based model?
I would be interested to hear what your main reason or two was for rejecting Islam, catholicism, Hinduism etc.

Another broad and far reaching topic that will lead off onto another tangent. I would be glad to discuss everything you are curious about in the future, even the very near future should this line of dialog wanes but for now please forgive me for not branching out again. I will answer briefly that other religions were not reasonable or did they fit as well with reality as did Christianity.

That's fair enough but I am not asking you to speculate about what evidence I might have. I am asking what events, or facts, or other could either convince you that you have been mistaken about this personal relationship or cause you to reevaluate your certainty?

All I can say with certainty is that nothing since the revelation of God has caused me to doubt God's existence or that I might be wrong. What could would be something that I am unaware of now and if I am unaware how would I know?

Wow this is tough! You try it um... I guess I would have said that in addition to being the creator of everything, he is a triune, relational God who wants to be in relationship with us and who wants us to glorify him, in our beliefs, actions, words as well as by what we don't do, say and think. I think I probably would have been pretty much in alignment with the nicean creed.

I feel like there might have been more to respond to but that's it for now.

Ok. I know I had a point in asking you this but it escapes me right now. I withhold the right to respond later if I wish. I know what you mean by there might be more to say, I sometimes get frustrated with time restraints in how I respond. Have a great night. Its been a pleasure conversing with you.[/Quote][/Quote][/Quote][/Quote]

 

[Athée]

Hey all, so we just sold our house and are now trying to do d a place to live, additionally I am one of a very small committee putting on a conference on Monday. I am going to try to get a few thoughts up but it will be VERY slow for a few days at least.
Take care

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey all, so we just sold our house and are now trying to do d a place to live, additionally I am one of a very small committee putting on a conference on Monday. I am going to try to get a few thoughts up but it will be VERY slow for a few days at least.
Take care

Crazy how life just interferes with all this isn't it. I totally understand, I know it happens to me all the time. I sometimes forget to come back in here and let people know too so thanks for letting us know. Have fun with all that life you have going on there and don't worry about writing until you have time to. Wishing you good luck with the housing and your committee too!

 

[bhsmte]

This thread may hold the record, for the longest posts in the history of man.

 

[Athée]

This thread may hold the record, for the longest posts in the history of man.

Lol, feel free to break it!

 

[Athée]

Don't get excited I am only posting the bits I want to comment on, I will come back and add in my thoughts when I get the email chance... Just didn't want all the clips to time out

You claim that every time in the past that someone has used the "god of the gaps" argument that there has been a natural explanation for it, could you give some examples?

Sure. Rising and setting of the sun, rainbows, lightning, illness etc.

How it works does not answer how it came to work that way.

Agreed

Modern science itself began in the Christian worldview

And we are thankful!

That you feel a natural cause is behind it all, is begging the question...all there is is natural and so a natural explanation is all that is needed.

I actually disagree. I would rather say, all we have ever encountered has been natural as far as we can tell. I don't say a priori that supernatural doesn't exist only that as far as I can tell we have no way to demonstrate that it does. I think if a natural explanation is available then there is no need to add a supernatural layer to that explanation.

The second part: Actually, the majority of people in the world do believe in some sort of Supreme being. The largest religion is Christianity. Billions of people believe the Christian God exists, it is hardly some fringe belief system out there

The point I was making there was that most people in history or today don't believe in your specific God.
As you say Christianity is not a fringe belief but of course the number of people that believe an idea does not make it more or less true.

You claim there is no natural evidence for God but all natural evidence is actually evidence of God but it is the interpretation of that evidence where a non-believer goes wrong.

Now who is begging the question if we begin with the belief that God exists then all creation is evidence of him! Totally fair on your world view but also question begging.

I don't find it convincing to make unsubstantiated claims to explain a phenomenal amount of necessities that allow not only life but order from which it arises.

Some of these unsubstantiated claims are:
1. Life comes from non-living matter.
2. That other universes can explain the fine tuning of this universe.
3. That the appearance of design is an illusion.

Let me say that I am not a science nerd at all so I may be way off here. My understanding is that:
1. It is not imagined to be a one step process where non life instantly becomes life. I thought it was more like an emergent property. One molecule of water doesn't get you wetness but millions do, so somewhere on that continuum wetness emerges.
2. If you are referring to the multiverse hypothesis, I am not convinced it is true, however of it were, and the universal values are indeed random, then having infinite iterations of those values will make any specific set of them necessary.
3. But most relevant experts do think it is only apparent design.

In the Christian worldview "badness", selfishness, despair and immorality are all the lack of goodness, selflessness, hope and morality. They exist only when the goodness, selflessness, hope and morality are in absence. Badness, selfishness, despair and immorality don't exist unless and until goodness, selflessness, hope and morality are taken away.

I agree that in your world view this is reasonable, what we were discussing was ways of eliminating all other logically possible scenarios. I understand that you think evil is the absence of good but I don't see why it could not equally be the case that good is the absence of evil. I know you don't believe the Ed hypothesis but I have yet to see a demonstration of how we can know it to be false.

What makes it logical? Why is a figment of your imagination created to imply that just any claim is equal to mine when my claim is backed by billions of people believing they have evidence to support theirs? Not only that but a belief that has evidence outside of itself that support it?

I actually think that your hypothesis is more valid than the scenarios I am inventing but that wasn't the question. We were talking again about your claim that you have ruled out all other possibilities.

Where do we find this inherent property of matter? Where in a rock does the law of non-contradiction arise? How does a rock inherently contain this law? IF there were no rocks at all, would the law of contradiction no longer exist? If there was no matter at all, would the law of contradiction no longer exist?

Oh good questions... First I don't think trying to situate a property of an object in a specific fact of its existence makes sense. We wouldn't ask where in light does its speed reside. As for non contradiction and matter I think that in the total absence of matter (which would include quantum fields, the universe etc) that the law of non-contradiction could only be said to exist hypothetically. That without matter the law could not be instantiated. That is, it would still be true in that scenario that if matter were to appear that the law would hold, to the extent which there is one matter to describe, it does not actually exist.

You misunderstand, God didn't create the laws of logic but is the logic behind the laws. The mind of God being discovered through our own minds.

I feel like you have said something profound and I am totally missing it :/ I am not sure what you mean when you say God is the logic behind the laws.

However, unlike the angels that chose once and are already in heaven and are now covered by God's grace for an eternity we live on earth and each person, in each generation onward from the very beginning has this choice to make. We reproduce so we pass on the same nature we are born with to the next generation and they must choose for themselves.

OK I only cited a tiny bit of this because there were several sections about this. What I think you are saying is that angles and Adam and Eve being immortals got to exercise free will. You seem to be saying they had a one time opportunity to choose but I think what you really mean is that they continually chose to obey God but once they made the choice to disobey, that single choice was final and the consequences irreversible. Is that right? If so I think what you are saying makes sense on your world view. There are still some problems though. How would a choice to disobey God change Eve's nature? What was different about her nature and how is this an inheritable trait? And do you believe that we are all genetic descendants of a single human pair?
More importantly though, you have acknowledged that God is responsible for what happens in his creation and so doesn't it strike you as a problem that God allows sin into the world. Sure he has a back up plan (drown everyone and start over knowing it won't work, pick a single group out of all your created beings and only care about them to the eternal detriment of all the others but also knowing that they are going to get it all wrong so badly despite all your interventions (that you know won't work) that you are going to have to kill a part of yourself (in a way that is not at all death) etc..
What seems more likely to you, that the God of the universe is this incompetent or that these stories are made up by a specific group of humans trying to explain thier place in the world?

He wanted us to live in this universe, on this earth and to do so created us humans and self reproducing to multiply and learn about the beauty of love, hope, faith, laughter and a multitude of experiences that angels never get to participate in.

This was ways my understanding as well. To flesh it out though it means that God wants us to suffer, that all the evil all the pain and all the mindless suffering of this world is exactly what he wants for us. Sure he has a plan to save some of us out of this, but most of us (broad is the path that leads to destruction and many are they...) just get eternal consequences. You have said in conversation with AC that it is moral to kill babies in certain circumstances and that doing so before they can exercise free will is allowable because the outcome is heaven. How do you square that belief with a God who's great plan is to cause those created in his image to experience incredible suffering on earth and then most of them get to continue in eternal suffering.
You might be thinking that it is a numbers game as you have said before. That this way more people get in overall. But this seems problematic to me. If someone was in some twisted prison camp where the rule was you get to keep 1 out if every 10 children you birth. The other 9 we will torture for thier entire lives. Would the moral thing to do be to have as many children as possible so that you would get to keep more kids with you, while creating an even greater number to be tortured?

She didn't choose to do wrong, she chose to disobey.

This seems to be where we are missing each other. Are you saying that disobedience to God is a sin and even if she didn't have any knowledge of this fact, that the result is the same because God is perfect and can't live with sin? That punishment for her decision just, whether she knew she was doing wrong or not?

Punishment is not for what Eve did, it just set up the nature of sin in people which is inherited in following generations.

I asked about this above. How does it work etc.

This seems logical until you realize they were not forgiven by animal sacrifice, they were forgiven because they understood the coming of the Messiah.

But that simply is not the case. Christians want to say that those animal sacrifices were symbolic of the later sacrifice of Jesus but that is not what the news believed and that is jot what Yahweh told them. Nowhere in that passage you cited does it make the case that you are making.

Do you believe it is unfair and immoral for a Being that created people to reward those that do no harm to others and follow His dictates and to punish those who are evil and do great harm to others and do not follow His dictates?

Of course the Jews did do harm to others, but even worse God only adopted one group of his creation he didn't tell those other groups about his dictates, didn't guide them and teach them. He specifically didn't tell them the rules and then had them killed for not following them!

God doesn't say that He will wait until the end of days to cast judgement against those who do evil things. He does say that He will be patient and long suffering so that people can change their actions and do evil no more. God didn't immediately wipe them out. It was years and years of their attacking the Jews and other nations before God said enough and cast judgement against them.

It seems that you want this to sound living and long suffering but of course he knows if people are going to change or not and so by waiting all he is doing is increasing the number of souls in hell.

The absence of goodness. The action of depravity and harm against others without just cause.

Ok this is pretty good, I think the first bit tries to smuggle in Christian assumptions though.

I am not saying that your concept of harm is problematic in establishing morality, it just comes in short of what is moral and what is not. Someone can be harmed, even killed for a moral reason. If that is true, then harm can not be the absolute criteria for morality.

But an instance where causing harm is moral does not acutely negate the principle of harm as a foundation for morality. You would need to give an example where it was both moral to cause harm and where that action was not taken to prevent greater harm.

So you are saying that God should have provided a supernatural solution to a natural occurrence. You are not saying that defending the Jews against an evil and harmful threat is wrong, He just went about it the wrong way?

Well as I said above I don't think picking only one group was moral to begin with but yes essentially I agree with what you said. It seems to me that a God could have done a better job than "kill them all". Again is is a question of what is more likely, that the all powerful God couldn't come up with a better solution than the one being tried by all the other non-inspired people groups of the time or that this account is a justification written by a specific group when they wanted to deploy the "attack!" solution that was the no for the times?

You forget what the choice is all about, the ultimate prize...living an eternity in a world where there is no evil, no suffering, no pain with God. So why is it bad that these babies went immediately to heaven?

It's not about the ones who go to heaven, it is about all the souls that don't.

I was telling AC in my response to him that the two of you are my favorite posters (that have posted to me) on the opposing side. You are both respectful and cordial. Both of you make your case without personal attacks which I really appreciate. So thank you for your maturity and openness

Well maturity might be a bit of a stretch but thank you, I agree it has been a great conversation so far and I am looking forward to more!

Now about the Bible claiming women are of less value:

So there are verses that talk about headship and women being silent and women being the glory of men etc. These are problematic but I understand apologetics for them even if I do think find them convincing. However in Leviticus we get a very clear valuation of men versus women according to God:
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the Lord involving the valuation of persons, then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels. If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, the valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels. If the person is from a month old up to five years old, the valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female the valuation shall be three shekels of silver. And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the valuation for a male shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.
Leviticus 27:1-8 ESV
http://bible.com/59/lev.27.1-8.ESV

So we can see that women are certainly not equal according to God. I find it interesting how close it is to the ruling the US that had African Americans as 3/5 of a person.

Again what is more likely that the God of the universe as you understand him thinks women are 3/5 of a person as far as value or that this passage was made up by the uneducated misogynists of the day?

Knowledge? I'm lost?

Knowledge is a substantial of belief, justified true belief, once we know, in this sense, that women are equal persons to men it becomes immoral to treat them otherwise. The argument is that God must have ways knkwn but didn't bother to make sure half of the world's population would be treated equally.

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

Lol,i love when I search the Bible for a text that I literally had my finger on before I started looking!
I agree that this is a good verse, saying kidnapping for human trafficking is bad. Unfortunately the Bible also says. When you buy your slaves, buy them from, the nations around you... So owning people as property is still fine. Actually it is worse, because God makes the distinction that it is wrong to treat other jews this way but OK to do so to outsiders.

They did make them household labor, they did having them working for the family and yest they did give young women captured to be wives for their sons. There is nothing in the Bible that makes the claim that these young women were forced to marry and sleep with the sons immediately and not without a period of adjustment. The culture of the time was that if a woman was alone it was the worst possible position to be in. There was no money, no home, nothing. When these young women married into the Jewish families they were treated as daughters. No where does it say they were sex slaves. It was also unlawful for a man to force a women to marry him. So if the young women refused to wed, she would probably be placed in the household for cleaning or cooking or tending to children.

I am not familiar with the sources you are drawing this information from, could you point me in the right direction?

Most other nations could kill their slaves without recourse. I'm not saying that beating a slave in anyway is just or moral and I don't think that is what is being communicated, but that they are not to be beat.

I don't see how you can hold that beloef in the face of the evidence.
When the text says, when you beat your slaves, if they die from it within 2 days you will be punished but if they don't there is no punishment because they are your property. How do you interpret this to mean "don't beat your slaves at all"?

What we see here is the same punishment for free man and slave. Do you have any moral outrage for the quarreling man?

I don't of course but I confused. The Bible version I am looking at does not have that same clause that you present after the eclipses (about a slave being allowed to fully heal etc) Could you copy paste the whole passage and give the reference for me

I'm not complaining mind you, just not wanting to add on another in depth question to the already abundant ones we are discussing.

Lol fair enough! We should start a side list in a conversation thread where we can keep track.
So far we have at least : teleological and euthyphro

Objective is more in line with not influenced by personal bias or opinion. Absolute is something that can not be diminished in any way, it is exists independently without any relation to other things. It is fixed and can not change.

OK so how would you use those in a definition of morality?

We determine it with reason as with any question. Does the Quran make the same claims, does it worship the same God, does it stand up to scrutiny between the Bible and itself.

I agree with you, it does come down to evidence. This is why non-falsifiable belief structures are so problematic.

Another broad and far reaching topic that will lead off onto another tangent. I would be glad to discuss everything you are curious about in the future, even the very near future should this line of dialog wanes but for now please forgive me for not branching out again. I will answer briefly that other religions were not reasonable or did they fit as well with reality as did Christianity.

Add it to the list!

All I can say with certainty is that nothing since the revelation of God has caused me to doubt God's existence or that I might be wrong. What could would be something that I am unaware of now and if I am unaware how would I know?

Great response! It seems to me that much of your belief is based on your confidence that your experiences of God are true so perhaps some of the evidence from cognitive science might make you a little less certain about those valuations. The other major pillar of your belief seems to be the Bible (for obvious reasons!) if I could show that even a part of the Bible was unreliable, or that we have good reason to doubt it in certain instances would that change your confidence level. To be clear I am not saying that these lines of inquirery would lead you to immediately abandon your faith, simple do you think it is possible that such evidence could move you from 100 percent certain (although I think you actually said 98 or something because no one has an answer to hard solipsism) to say 95 percent certainty?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why is it too late when you are dead?

That is the way it works.

 

[Davian]

That is the way it works.

Why can't we be presented with compelling evidence to believe before we die? How is that just?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Made a couple edits after rereading.

No problem, its been a while since you posted.

I have not died as far as I am aware, so I suppose it is possible that I will get my sign one day.

I think there is no doubt that you are still living. Perhaps but there is this too: 38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you. “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

So at least in this circumstance God was not going to give a sign, claiming that there are enough past signs to show His existence.

I still am not convinced of this interpretation, but I am no biblical scholar. Why is he telling his followers to be constantly vigilant and that some of them will still be alive when this event happens if he's referring to something a couple months down the line (I don't know the specific amount of time from when he made this prophesy to the transfiguration)?

You will have to show me the passage that you are talking about I guess. I'm not sure which one you are referring to.

26"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27"But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

And then they do: 29And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah,31who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.…

So in the end you agree that God does in some instances override free will (whatever the justification might be) to achieve his goals. Yes or no (plus whatever additional stuff you want of course)?

This is what the Bible says about this: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. So we know that there are times when He will harden hearts. Yet, there are only a few cases in the Bible where He does so, so I don't think that it is something He does repeatedly.

I'm not suggesting that God just mind control everyone to love him. Note that I asked why he doesn't intervene in cases where someone cannot otherwise be saved. We have established that God is willing to subvert free will to achieve his ends, so why not do so to save a soul that is otherwise damned? This question becomes more difficult for you to answer when we consider your stances on baby killing. According to you God has reaped their souls early before they have the chance to choose wrong. If it is acceptable to remove that option of choosing evil for thousands of babies (or trillions if we count all babies who have died) then it is inconsistent not to extend the same mercy to souls he knows cannot otherwise be saved.

Would you have rather not lived your life? Would you have rather only lived briefly if it meant you would spend an eternity with God? I don't think inconsistent is accurate. Clearly God has the right to determine who He creates and who He doesn't and to show mercy (which is when someone deserves punishment but doesn't receive that which is deserved). The point of this life or purpose behind it, is to learn about very different aspects of God's character. Love which could not be experienced if not but for free will being the most important.

Would you really limit yourself to legal means if it meant letting your child die? Imagine your child is 100% committed to homoeopathy and thinks mainstream medicine is to be avoided at all costs. They are within their rights to refuse real medicine and are not exhibiting an actual mental pathology, so you really have no legal recourse. They aren't suicidal, they are just really against mainstream medicine. Would you save them or let them choose to die because they don't believe the right thing? Loving your child as you do, would your desire for them to choose the right path on their own allow you to let them die?

I think for this analogy to remain as applicable as possible to the idea of salvation and free will and whatnot, suicidal tendencies don't make much sense. Medically saved = spiritually saved. Homoeopathy = non-Christian belief/atheism. I can't really see how being suicidal or homicidal fits in here. Suicidal would have to equate to wanting to be damned. Homicidal would have to equate to wanting others damned. This doesn't really make sense. Once your soul is saved, you aren't going to be inclined/able to reverse that, nor would you go about trying to get other people damned.

This analogy is just not working for the saved/unsaved aspects you wish to discuss. The element that you are not engaging in is sin and what that means in regard to God's holiness. He has to punish sin or pay for it Himself. Those are the only options available. He can't pay for it Himself unless we allow Him to.

I agree that finger cutting would be more coercion than convincing, but I don't think your analogy fits the situation. Would you really think that they were God or would you think they were a psycho cutting off your fingers? Anyone with a knife can cut off fingers. The points is that God isn't just tormenting the Egyptians to make them believe in his power, he's tormenting them in a way only God could do. Maybe Pharaoh relents because he wants the plagues to stop, but does that mean he is any less convinced that he is being punished by a god? You seem to be saying that signs and wonders don't violate free will if they're positive but do violate free will if they're negative and I don't really see the distinction.

We can believe if we wish to even with signs. There were great signs in Jesus's time but the Pharisees still didn't believe. The Jews could have chosen to make excuses for the signs given them. However, when God is sending down His wrath upon you, you want relief. Saying you will give in comes not from true desire to worship God but to have Him stop the suffering you are going through.

If you recall, the point of this line of discussion is whether it is possible to make inferences about the past based on the present. I didn't really mean to select an actual biblical example, hence the switch to eggplants. I was disputing your claim that it was impossible to make any inferences about what was going on in the past, specifically in reference to a race of invariably evil people.

So your problem is that you don't believe the whole nation was evil and acted in evil ways?

If God did convince me he were real then I don't see why I wouldn't believe he could talk through a donkey if he wished.

Good. That is a good insight.

Once we get to the point where you are saying that there must be a reason even if you can't think of one, we have hit faith bedrock. But this leads to the question of the utility of faith in determining truth. It seems to me that once we are relying on faith rather than data, we all but lose the ability to know if we are approaching the truth or not. With data we can see how well our ideas fit whereas with faith we must simply believe that our ideas are correct. Thoughts?

You are confusing blind faith with just faith. If we have nothing to base that faith upon and it is totally blind then I would agree with you. That is not the case here. Think of it like this: You know that evolution occurs. You take it on faith that the small gradual evolutionary changes in an organism brought about the big changes we see. You can't see the big changes taking place but you know how it works and you using that experience/knowledge determine that evolution is the process behind the diversity of life on earth. Faith is like that too. You have a multitude of experience/knowledge of God and you know how it works so you understand that using that what you can expect from God.

According to this logic, wouldn't it make the most sense to just kill as many babies as possible without causing the population to collapse? Everyone goes to heaven that way. If five thousand is better than five, shouldn't billions be better than five thousand?

And you missed a little bit of the problem I think. It's not just the baby souls involved. I'm asking how it could be more merciful to let thousands of souls of the evil nations go to hell than to kill a few babies whose souls go to Heaven and prevent all those souls from being lost.

There is a purpose behind every life on earth. We don't know what that purpose is or how long it takes to achieve that purpose. I'm not God, and neither are you. What seems reasonable to us is only that way because we only have a certain amount of information. We do know that information can change the way we view things all the time.

I understand what you're saying, but I want you to support your position. You have asserted that being created and having a sinless nature are mutually exclusive. Why? Can you supply any scriptural support for the claim that we can't be sinless because we were created?

I'm not proposing that God make us Gods, merely that he create us with the same nature he has, one for which sin is impossible. On what basis do you claim that God's omnipotence is limited in such a way as to prevent him creating us thusly? Again, do you have any scriptural support for this?

He can't create something that can't be created. He wasn't created and can not create something that isn't created.
24"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;…

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.…

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and amongthe inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"


We can't even think in the same way God does let alone be omnipotent, omnipresence, Omnisapience, and Omniscience. Without these attributes we could not ever be completely sinless.

Do you mean then that these souls would be evil regardless of the culture into which they were born?

Yes.

You haven't established this. What prevents God from creating us with a nature like his own that would prevent us from sinning? He's not giving us immortality, omniscience or omnipotence. Just a nature that ins't compatible with sin. What scriptural support do you have for your claim?

God is self sufficient and needs nothing and is not created.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Just acknowledging that we have established something.

Hmm.

Okay, I think you have at last agreed that killing babies (regardless of the reasons involved) before they can choose good or evil does indeed violate their free will. Is this correct? A clean "yes" or "no" would be appreciated, along with whatever you feel the need to add.

I am not saying that this violation of free will means that God doesn't value free will. I'm saying that this regular (every time a baby dies) violation of free will means that allowing us to choose good or evil isn't so important to God that he will never bypass that choice to achieve his goals.

This leads to the question I've asked before. If God is willing to subvert free will to achieve his goals, why isn't he willing to do it in order to save the souls of his beloved children that would otherwise be lost?

I would suppose that our choosing to worshiping Him is more important to Him that us being forced to worship Him.

Fair enough. I think that's about as far as my bible skills can take me here.

Noted.

Is he saying that you should value your relationship with him more than you value your relationship with your children? Do you value your relationship with him more than with your children?

Value...I'm not sure that is the correct term. God gave us life, He rewards us in Heaven and on the new earth so I think He wants His due praise for that. Our relationships including those of our children are gifts from God, as is even the breaths we take. So it is not that He wants the value of our other loves in our lives to be considered of less value but to acknowledge His necessary Existence towards ours. Without God we do not live, our children do not live. None of this exists. So God comes first as necessary in our world. Just as we love our husbands or wives differently than our children we can't say that we love one more than the other but that love is different. We would value our love of our spouse more than our children or vise versa but we consider the spouse more in deciding matters than we do our children. I hope that illuminates this passage for you.

You've mentioned this before, but I don't see how it supports the idea that angiosperms were actually among the first organisms as Genesis claims.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that angiosperms came before earlier plant life? There is no reason to believe that plants even evolved as they did later on. First with cyanobacteria and onward to the angiosperms and then all wiped out completely prior to the Cambrian.

Land plants may have appeared earlier than supposed, but this is nowhere near supporting the Precambrian existence of angiosperms and seed-bearing plants. Using similar methods to the study you linked wherein land plants were said to have appeared around 700Ma, this study on angiosperms gives a max date of about 275Ma although most of the methods yielded dates of around 180Ma. If you are willing to accept molecular dates that push the origin of land plants back, you should be willing to accept molecular dates that show angiosperms were not around anywhere near the Precambrian as would be necessary for Genesis to be accurate.

What? I don't know what you are missing here.

Sufficient.

Ok good.

Interesting. However it is based on no actual evidence and runs counter to the available evidence. Remember that the molecular clocks suggest a maximum age of 275Ma for angiosperms, although it's probably more like 180Ma.

If plants existed in the Precambrian as is supported, there is no reason not to believe that they too evolved into angiosperms and all were lost before the beginning of the Cambrian.




Okay, I get the order you're trying to establish here, but I don't see how it aligns with what Genesis actually says. So let's try to simplify and you can support your interpretation in a very clear, direct way.

1. Explain why "every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it" does not include whales, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs etc.

2. Explain why "Let the earth bring forth living creatures" does not refer to the creation of land animals in general.

Explain why it should include them? Why?

To be clear, you do not have any evidence supporting the Precambrian existence of angiosperms and both the fossil and molecular evidence points away from that conclusion.

Molecular evidence would only be good for the plants that evolved after the Cambrian.

There are far too many posters on this site that either can't or don't care enough to keep their discourse civil. I used to indulge in such childishness when I felt provoked, but it really bugs me and I now do my best not to be one of those people. You do a good job of that too, which I appreciate.

Thanks, I agree. There is no reason for all that and I have done the same before too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why can't we be presented with compelling evidence to believe before we die? How is that just?

He seems to think He has.

 

[Davian]

He seems to think He has.

Are you privy to the thoughts of your god, or are you just giving your interpretation of what is written in the the bible?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you privy to the thoughts of your god, or are you just giving your interpretation of what is written in the the bible?

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I'd be interested to know how you interpret that?

 

[Davian]

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I'd be interested to know how you interpret that?

Invisible things that are clearly seen? An attempt at humour.

 

[Athée]

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I'd be interested to know how you interpret that?

Not to start another side conversation but chiming in. If you read that entire argument in Romans 1 you can see that Paul is not talking about all people but a specific group.

Conversely:
For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “Lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge.
1 Corinthians 8:5-7 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1co.8.5-6 ESV