Hey Once, thanks for taking the time to respond twice!
grrrrr.
Sure, I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. I don't see what saying " a magical being did this by magic" helps explain anything, you think God is the ultimate explanation for everything and gives it purpose. For what it's worth, If God existed I would agree with you
Ok, I'm glad you see it as cohesive within my worldview.
This sounds like an appeal to the teleological argument. How would you present the teleological?
While I admit that my question sounds more like gibberish...I really need to proof read these things before I post.
But I'd like you to answer it, and it should have been: What evidence do you feel shows that God is not necessary for the creation of a universe?
Actually it shows that even if your interpretation of Romans was correct (and I demonstrated clearly that it was not) there is a problem. You believe that God, not just a generic deity concept but your specific God, Yahweh, has made himself known to all through creation. Most people do not believe that Yahweh exists, therefore of he does exist he has failed to communicate it effectively.
I posted about the Romans passage on the other post. I guess He should have signed His work.
This boils down to: God has given me personal information that makes me know I am right, even though there is no evidence that this is the case. Not very compelling.
I agree that it is not that compelling for you, but for me it seals the deal.
Trick question?
Evolution is exactly this. Natural selection, working on random mutations, selecting those which perform a function that enhances reproduction. You end up with features that perform a task really well.
We were discussing the universe not the life in it. By the way you didn't give me a link to that universe that I asked about. I'd like that model as I've never heard of it I guess.
You are still missing the point. The Ed hypothesis accounts for the data exact as well as the Yahweh hypothesis. You say I have made up the Ed hypothesis and this is exactly what I think your God concept is, simply that it was invented a long time ago and evolved. In any case you said you have proved no other possibilities existed. I have given you the Ed possibility. Give me a single bit of evidence or some sort of counterfactual that nullifies the Ed hypothesis and I will stop asking about it. But until that time you are simply not justified in claiming that your God is the only possible explanation. Some accusing me of making Ed up doesn't constitute such evidence by the say since it could be the case that Ed exists but simply fooled me into thinking I invented the idea, specifically so that you would not believe in him, therefore causing you to dedicate your life to a fake God and caring you immense suffering and regret upon meeting Ed when you die.
Its your claim, the burden of proof rests with you to show me that Ed exists and does as you claim.
In this instance using the Bible is circular. It is true that God is the only explanation because it is in the Bible and we know the Bible is true because it is the truth inspired by the one true God....
Secondly, I have not seen you invoke any science on this question (nor should you, I think you are thinking of some other question) and lastly personal experience is terrible evidence.
It is your claim about Ed and one that you need to back up if you want me to believe it a possibility. I have provided science in defense of my position, not in our posts however. Personal experience is terrible evidence for those who don't share it, I agree with that.
I kept these together because they seemed related.you are saying that of something can exist independent of human minds then it proves it is dependent on God. This is flawed. I would argue that the laws of non contradiction would hold even if no God existed. If you disagree please demonstrate why God is necessary as a foundation for the laws of logic.
Fair enough, what explanation for them would you propose if no minds existed for the laws of logic?
Thanks for the compliment but surely you see the irony here! I specifically said that the science is unclear, that we don't know if they lived thousands of years apart of at the same time. You then use this uncertainty as an opportunity to claim with certainty that they did exist at the same time by assuming this in your question, how did we all come from one man and one woman.
Whoa there cowboy, I was congratulating you on going further which had nothing to do with me thinking you agreed with me or even that my point was secure. I also never claimed that this woman was the only one living at that time. You are using a great deal of assumptions to accuse me of things I didn't do.
This is exactly the argument from ignorance fallacy that I specifically wanted you not to fall in to when discussing this exact evidence. Moreover, you didn't acknowledge that the science also says that mitochondrial Eve is not the same thing as first female human. Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent female ancestor of all humanity. Not at all the same thing. There could have been generations before this mitochondrial Eve. In short you have focused on the small part of the science that seems to confirm your conclusion about a historical Adam and Eve, but have ignored the rest of the data. This is classic confirmation bias. If you want to make the claim that science has confirmed Adam and Eve, please make the case and address the objections that lead the vast majority of relevant experts to disagree with your interpretation of the science.
Hows that log in your eye there Athee? 1. I never claimed that ME was the first female human. 2. I didn't focus on "this small part of science" you just have assumed this and then accused me of ignoring the rest of the data. 3. Then you ask me to address my objections of all the "relevant experts". Can you see inside of all that smoke from the straw man I just burned?
Yes it is consistent but doesn't in any way solve the problem unless you also believe that Satan is more powerful than God. If not then God has allowed, and indeed even planned for Satan to do all these things. The problem remains, God is in charge and his plan is as I described. How is this not incompetent? Or I guess just plain cruel would be another way of explaining the data.
I don't believe that Satan is more powerful than God or Satan would have done away with God when he decided to sin and try to take over God's throne. He would not have been thrown out of heaven if he was more powerful than God. Do you think that humans needed Satan to sin? I don't. I believe just as with man God allowed Satan to have choice and Satan's choice was to overtake God. God used Satan's own will and what that would present into God's creation to do God's own will. Now was God not good for allowing evil, if He didn't allow evil would be able to have free will. I don't think so, is it important for us to have free will, I think so. I like to have choices.
You said that morals are objective and that they are based in the character and nature of God, which never changes.
The objective principals never do change but they are not absolute in our own character. We can twist them, define them even though we have to live by them. We can abide that murder is wrong, but we can change the definition of murder or the definition of what constitutes a victim of murder. We abide that rape is wrong but we can twist it around and claim that an act of rape wasn't rape because....or that stealing is wrong but we can rationalize what is stealing means and then there is lying, all people think lying is wrong unless it is to save somebody's feeling or life but some can justify it for one reason or another. So everyone believes that murder is wrong no matter what culture, what period anywhere in the world but where we get around this objective principle is to determine what defines murder. Abortion is not murder because the baby hasn't been born for instance.
Becaise he could have created us in heaven with him, perfect and without the inclination to sin. He didn't because we need to experiment life on earth and choice and all that jazz (this is according to your world view bu the way) meaning that he had a reason for us to be in this suffering.
How do you know He could have created us perfect without the inclination to sin? What information do you have that provides you with this belief?
Easy, Jesus said so.
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Matthew 7:13-14 ESV
http://bible.com/59/mat.7.13-14.ESV
I just showed you that statistically that while it is not all, that it would be a majority. He also says: "And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God.
30"And behold, some are last who will be first and some are first who will be last."
So what do you think that means?
And there you have it. Many end up on the path to destruction and few even find the path to life.
Please answer the question in which this appears.
I don't know what question you are referring to.
Actually no...
Assertion 1.God is a Just God.
Assertion 2.He is loving yes,
Assertion 3. He is good yes, but He is also just.
Assertion 4. He is also totally righteous and can not be in the presence of sin or evil.
Assertion 5. God provides justice for all that have been wronged.
Assertion 6. If there is justice, God provides mercy as well.
Assertion 7. The mercy is in the covering of Jesus paying the debt.
I was gave a great deal of information on how many people would be saved and you ignore that and post this? I wonder why?
I'm confused. You seem to be making my point for me. Knowing good and evil are not the same as knkwing she should do what God said... Therefore when she disorder eyed God she did so without any knowledge that it was evil or sinful to do so. You can still say she sinned but she certainly didn't knowingly sin. How is this just? Can you imagine putting your kids in a situation where they have to make choices based on very important rules but then not telling them what the rules are. Then to make it worse the consequences for breaking the rules are incredibly severe and there is no second chance. Would you consider yourself a just parent?
I try to be.
Are you saying that if the news had not done any of the sacrifices God had told them to do, but had believed in God and in the messiah, that they would still have been cleansed from sin?
If they believe God and didn't do what He told them to do they would not actually believe God was who He was. So it is irrelevant.
You ha e cited this a blog times now but never provided any commentary. How do these verses show that Jesus in the OT didn't need to perform the sacrifices God told them to, in order to be cleansed.
I thought it was pretty obvious but the whole group show that it is by faith everyone was saved.
Well no this is not true. God knew before he created the universe that not all of us image bearers would be saved.
That doesn't mean that they could not have been saved.
I'm confused, how does my analogy fail? God chooses a single people group to bring about the future he wants = parent chooses 1 special child invest in for the future of the family.
God ignores the other groups leaving them outside loving relationship with him = parent ignores other disabled children
Parent is unloving and unjust for doing this, therefore so is God.
This is just a straw man.
Does it bother you that you have to rely on speculation so often do make the case for God being good?
God planned for Adam and Eve to sin... But maybe there is a good reason.
God allowed Satan to mess everything up... But maybe there is a good reason.
God drowned men, women, children, infants, foetuses in the flood.... But maybe there was a good reason.
God allows entire Nations to flourish, only to have them all killed... But maybe there is a good reason.
I could do this for hours but here is the point that.
From a speculative premise you only ever get a speculative conclusion.
I understand that I can't prove with absolute certainty that there is no possible explanation for why a God would do these things. On the other hand your only defence for these actions is that God is not like a human and maybe he has good reasons. This means that the absolute strongest conclusion you can reach is that MAYBE God is good.
My worldview is cohesive and based on my experience with God. I know that when things seem bad even in my life that the outcome has always been for the good. On the other hand you have no first hand experience with regard to God in anyway, you lack the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to aid in your understanding, you hold just as much of a confirmation bias against God as I do for Him and then tell me that I always claim that God has a good purpose behind what seems like a bad thing. While you judge God with the limited information you hold.
Nope, good effort though... How about this as a God I could move them to another planet, or I could just force them to love me, sure that isn't as great as them choosing it but at least I don't have to send then to a he'll that wasn't even made for them.Even better all thier kids would be raised in an environment where they would choose to love me! Problem solved and no genocide required
I guess I am smarter than God...
Yeah, that is what Satan thought too.
This is pure speculation with absolutely zero evidence to support it.
The evidence is that Hitler and Stalin killed millions upon millions of people. That is not zero evidence.
These are just the obvious ones... There are more
I agree that there are verses that confirm that some predestination exists and so does free will. While I don't think that all of these show predestination, there are those that do.
How blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to You
To dwell in Your courts.
We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house,
Your holy temple.
– Ps 65:4
The Lord has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.
– Prov 16:4
And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
– Mt 24:31
now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?
– Luke 18:7
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.
– Acts 15:17-18
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
– Romans 8:28- 30
Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies;
– Rom 8:33
for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
– Romans 9:11
For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
– Romans 9:15-16 (the whole chapter)
God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
– Rom 11:2
In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
– Romans 11:5-7
but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
– 1 Cor 2:7
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,…
also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
– Ephesians 1:5,11
knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;
– 1 Thes 1:4
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
– 2 Thes 2:13
Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,
– Titus 1:1
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
– 1 Peter 1:2
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
– Rev 13:8
So God told them to commit sinful acts?
No. He just gave them instructions about it.
I am going to cite the verses again just to be clear:
“When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed. “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Exodus 21:18-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.18-21.ESV
Once, with all due respect, your reading of this simply does not make sense.
First the verse says nothing about the quarling man dying and being avenged. As far as I can tell you have simply added that in, I have no idea from where. Thus the first parallel that you make is simply not in the text.
Then you seem to imply there is only a minor difference between a free man being allowed to rest and heal and be compensated for this time and the slave who gets nothing. Under these laws it is morally acceptable for me to break a slave's leg (they won't die within a couple days) and I won't have to compensate them because I own them.
But since God says it I guess you also believe this is OK?
18"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.…
There it is right there in bold and underlined. I don't know why you would think I would add it. Now I don't think it says it is perfectly ok to break a slaves leg or anything else. Just like it is not ok to kill anyone. Just because there are instructions of when that occurs, doesn't mean it is perfectly ok to do.
I don't see how those are different. Do you believe that objective morals exist? What about absolute morals, do these exist? Can you give me some examples from each category. Thanks!
Absolute morals would be those that we could not do anything but do them. Objective morals/humans...Absolute moral/God.
Or maybe the explanation could simply explain why humans believe things that are not true? I will get to work on making this case but am just waiting to clear up a few of our other lines of discussion.
Can't wait.