What if you seek and don't find?

[Oncedeceived]

I was referring to posts #578 (yours) and #579 (Athée)

I answered your question in post #574. I then asked a question about your question after answering yours. The question you asked again was the same as I answered, which is the usual standard for you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As you said in your last post, "due to chemical reactions in non-living matter it produces more non-living matter."

Is that not, at its base, life, matter producing matter? As was explained in those videos that (I assume) you watched, the line between living and non-living matter is a fuzzy one.

I told you I didn't watch the videos. Maybe you can summarize why this line between living and non-living matter is a "fuzzy" one.

Because you made the claim: "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter".

Substantiate it, or retract it.

I have no reason to. There is no evidence that shows non-living matter could ever become living matter. Either show evidence of non-living matter giving rise to living matter and how this could happen or concede that you have none.

In your theology, does not "life" come from your "God"? If that is your position, can you provide a definition of "life" that includes the "non-physical" (whatever that is) so you can stand by your declaration that "only life can come from life"?

When?

I don't know if you realize it or not but the ONLY evidence that exists for life is life coming from life.

 

[Davian]

I answered your question in post #574. I then asked a question about your question after answering yours. The question you asked again was the same as I answered, which is the usual standard for you.

So you saw where you response with a question, rather than an answer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you saw where you response with a question, rather than an answer.

I saw the post where I asked you a question after you asked me the same question that I had already answered.

 

[Davian]

So two thoughts as I was reading your post.
1. I think that she offered the prayer because she was convinced by the evidence that the existence of God was a possibility.

In that context, she was already a believer before she made the request.

2. I have always said that belief is not a conscious choice, we a free convinced or not by the evidence. But what if I am wrong about this? What if it is the case that we can choose to believe something that evidence alone was not enough to convince us of... But by constant rehearsal and reinforcement of our communities we eventually convince ourselves that it is true. At that point we can say we believe it even though the process started with a concious choice.

Thoughts?

How far do we push this back?

Will this [hypothetical] "God" hold me accountable for not believing, because I did not consciously submit myself to a program where such beliefs might be instilled in me by whatever means necessary, from drugs to torture?

 

[Davian]

I told you I didn't watch the videos.

Willful ignorance.

Maybe you can summarize why this line between living and non-living matter is a "fuzzy" one.

No, if you are not going to make the effort to understand the underlying science involved, I am not here to spoon feed it to you.

I have no reason to. There is no evidence that shows non-living matter could ever become living matter. Either show evidence of non-living matter giving rise to living matter and how this could happen or concede that you have none.

You made the claim, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim, if you are not going to substantiate it?

I don't know if you realize it or not but the ONLY evidence that exists for life is life coming from life.

Why do you make these claims that you are unable to substantiate?

In the meantime, in your theology, does not "life" come from your "God"? If that is your position, can you provide a definition of "life" that includes your "non-physical god" (whatever that is) so you can stand by your declaration that "only life can come from life"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Willful ignorance.

No, I can get the same information by reading it myself. I've read what you provided in that format. I don't foresee anything being in the video that is not covered by the material in written form which you gave me or any of the others I've pulled up from your source.

No, if you are not going to make the effort to understand the underlying science involved, I am not here to spoon feed it to you.

Of course.

You

made the claim, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim, if you are not going to substantiate it?

I have repeatedly answered this and my answer stays the same.

Why do you make these claims that you are unable to substantiate?

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/21169.aspx

The theory of biogenesis states that living things can only arise from living things and cannot be spontaneously generated.
All evidence available to us shows that life comes from existing life.

In the meantime, in your theology, does not "life" come from your "God"? If that is your position, can you provide a definition of "life" that includes your "non-physical god" (whatever that is) so you can stand by your declaration that "only life can come from life"?

It doesn't matter, the only evidence we have of life is life arising from existing life. If you have something that shows that life can arise from non-living matter present it or concede.

 

[Davian]

No, I can get the same information by reading it myself. I've read what you provided in that format. I don't foresee anything being in the video that is not covered by the material in written form which you gave me or any of the others I've pulled up from your source.

That you asked "why this line between living and non-living matter is a "fuzzy" one" tells me that you are unfamiliar with the material.

Of course.

I have repeatedly answered this and my answer stays the same.

Indeed; you made the claim, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter".

1) you could try to substantiate this claim
2) you could retract it

or you could do what you have done to this point...

3) obfuscate.

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/21169.aspx

The theory of biogenesis states that living things can only arise from living things and cannot be spontaneously generated.
All evidence available to us shows that life comes from existing life.

It doesn't matter, the only evidence we have of life is life arising from existing life.

That would take "gods" out of the picture, would it not?

If you have something that shows that life can arise from non-living matter present it or concede.

I am still waiting for you to substantiate or retract your claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That you asked "why this line between living and non-living matter is a "fuzzy" one" tells me that you are unfamiliar with the material.

I asked you to summarize the material to tell me what you understand as the "fuzzy" line between non-living and living matter. Are you unable to present the material you have provided?

Indeed; you made the claim, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter".

1) you could try to substantiate this claim
2) you could retract it

or you could do what you have done to this point...

3) obfuscate.

My answer stands.

That would take "gods" out of the picture, would it not?

My claim didn't include God.

I am still waiting for you to substantiate or retract your claim.[/QUOTE]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I will take a look but if they are long I probably won't take the time, I am sure there are articles that you could cite that would be as informative and not as time consuming?

If you are genuinely interested in the question of whether the universe had a "beginning," then they are well worth your time.

This actually made me laugh. How do you interpret stretched as anything but stretched?

You're saying that the word cannot be used figuratively? All its uses must be literal?

Have you heard of first cause?

You appeared to argue that intelligence requires an explanation, but then made an exception for Yahweh (who is intelligent) without justifying it.

 

[Athée]

You didn't answer my question about what you teach.

I am a hearing resource teacher... Wow I like telling people that in text way better than in person... Very minimal chance that you will respond with...
You teach what (pretending that you didn't hear me)?

This seems like a logic way to view it all but if you take it from another perspective and the universe as vast and incredible as it is shrinks down to a bauble on a cat's collar

...
Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

There is no way a life form within this universe would be aware there was a whole different realm that existed outside of it.

But believers in most God concepts say they are aware of this extra, spiritual realm.

but there are those things that don't seem logical to assume they arise from the natural world and need explanation as well

The default position for any proposition should be "I don't know". Then we look at the evidence and are compelled one way or the other on a given issue. You seem to be saying that the fact that there are puzzling things we don't understand about our universe, that therefore you are justified in moving from "I don't know" to "I'm certain my God exists". That is a problem. In the past as we have discussed, every time there was something mysterious about our world or experience that a God was supposed to explain, it turns out that a God is not needed to explain it. So if anything the fact that there are questions, odd things that seem counterintuitive, should more firmly root us in the belief that there will be a natural explaination...there always has been in the past. Put another way, the fact that we humans don't know everything is not evidence for your God.

I hope you see that you were mistaken and I didn't claim I had disproved anything.

I am baffled... What does the question "how have you ruled out all other possibilities?" mean, if it doesn't mean how have you disproved all other possibilities?

Ed doesn't have a Bible in which he is identified as god. He doesn't have any other sources that name him. He didn't have any witnesses that lend credibility of him. Having no Bible we have nothing to compare the universe with to show whether Ed exists.

The reason ed doesn't have a Bible is because it is part of his plan to remain hidden.
But all the evidence in the universe is consistent with Ed's existence so the state of the universe and the human condition all serve as evidence that he exists.

So lets look at this evil god Ed. If He is evil, where does the good arise? We understand that with God evil is the absence of good or exists by God withholding His goodness. I don't believe that goodness is the withholding of evil. There has to be a source of the good.

This is a bunch of assertions. There is no reason to think that goodness can't be the withholding of evil, nor does there have to be a source for good.

The absence of evil can not be goodness because evil has no morality. Without morality, there is no goodness.

Morality is a property of goodness such that when ed withholds his evil, the goodness that he thereby allows, contains morality within it.

I didn't say that I didn't believe that Adam was made from the dust, nor that Eve was not made from an actual rib. I said that I didn't know what all that entailed but Adam and Eve were the first humans to have a soul.

So it seems like you are saying you don't know of Adam and Eve were made the way the Bible says they were. Fair enough. The question then is how do you decide what parts of the Bible to believe actually are historical? Shouldn't you be able to ask the holy spirit what is the truth about Adam and Eve and find out?

Well you are more than welcome to have your own opinion but as of yet you haven't shown that having a choice is a bad thing nor that God is more concerned with His glory than His creations.

The story of pharaoh is proof of concept. Why did God harden the Pharaoh's heart.. So that he might more fully reveal his glory. In this case by killing a bunch of people. Seems that in this instance God's glory was more important the lives of all those people he created in Egypt.

So we agree. But you believe that God taking a moral action that might appear appalling is cruel and has no moral reason? Am I understanding your position correctly?

Yes I think that is basically correct. By way of analogy... Let's say two kids ages 3 and 5 are in a room. The room is empty and entirely made of metal. There is only one exit to the room, a ladder that begins 6 feet above the floor (too high for one kid standing on the other to reach. Some how these kids are trapped in there and the floor begins to heat up. At some point the flood will be so hot that the only thing the older kid can do to stop the pain is to stand on top of the body of the younger one ( it wouldn't work the other way because the younger one doesn't have the balance, let's say). This is horrible and in most other circumstances standing on top of your sibling causing them to burn to death would be atrocious. In this case it is the only way for any of the kids to survive. So it is awful yes but not immoral.
Now take that same situation and make it an adult and a toddler. Should the adult stand on the toddler to stay alive? Of course not, the adult can pick the kid up, grab the bottom of the ladder and get them both out.
God is like that adult except instead of choosing to use his power to save the life of that toddler he allows them to burn in hell.

I think that you meant you don't think He exists or have you changed your mind?

Not yet There should be an achievement on this website for Christians who successfully convert a non believer!

I think support for we not being able to have a sinless nature rests in the fact that the only sinless Being is God and that we are not God. God didn't create Himself, thus He being the only Being sinless would support the common sense conclusion that only God can be sinless and created beings not being God could not be sinless. What prohibits this conclusion?

On what basis did you determine that God didn't create himself?
Why is it outside his power to make a sinless being?

Yes, but after conceding that point I realized that it didn't mean that only a few were called but that all are called but only a few will accept it. So, is it wrong for God for allowing us a real choice in whether or not we spend eternity worshiping Him?

Remember that God predestined those who would be saved. So his great and good plan from the beginning has included this aspect of most of his created souls, made in his image, going to hell. How is this a good plan?

To intervene is to occur in time between events while subvert is to overturn or or overthrow. In the case of Pharaoh, his will we know was against God and even when God allowed it to return, Pharaoh went after the Jews and tried to kill them all. He didn't have to subvert the will, He knew that the will was weakened but still bent against God. God intervened and hardened his heart for a time when he would have relented for a weakened moment but would have restrengthened it as he did in the end.

Maybe God knows pharaoh would have hardened his heart again in his own but we don't. There is a pattern to be sure but it is far from clear that pharaoh was free in any of those instances. Remember God told Moses ahead of time that he was going to harden pharaohs heart. So that is problem number 1. Problem 2 is that your your distinction between intervening and subverting is a distinction coupon without a difference. In the critical moment of decision Gog stops pharaoh from making the virtuous decision, forces him to sin against God so that God can punish him.. Why worship a being like that?

Now this is something I hadn't thought about until now, if God were not to intervene with everyone's free will no one would be saved according to what it says in the Bible. By our very nature we rebel against God. If He were not to intervene by giving us subtle nudges and whatever else He will do then none of us would chose God because we like our sin nature too much and our own autonomy. So you and others like you have had experiences which nudged you towards Him but your own autonomy won out.

So remember that God predestined those who would be saved. Now you are telling me that God is the agent that allows that to happen at all. So those non predestined suckers never had a chance in hell, literally. God knows what and how much nudging would bring us to salvation a d he is the only one who can do it. He has demonstrated that he is willing to do physical appearances, miraculous signs etc. So maybe the reason he doesn't do that for us all is that he actually doesn't want us all saved. Again why worship a God like that?

Ahhh. What Jesus is saying is that all laws hang on two commandments: In Matthew 7:12 He says: 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Nope, good effort though. Did you want me to post the verses again? I agree that Jesus said those things (on your assumption the the Bible is true) but this is a different part of the sermon. In the verses I cited he does say you are to obey the OT laws. If you disagree, deal with the actual passages in your response.

Being God's chosen was hardly a walk in the park. They have been a target themselves throughout history. Do you think the few times that God commanded them to kill compared to the times others have attacked them and tried to wipe them out is very lopsided. Hitler killed 40 million of them. I hardly think that they have been shown any more love than any other group.

Every time God rescued the news it was at the expense of those around them but more the point... God made a way for one group and one group only to be I right relationship with him at the time. Before Jesus you would say that God was still God and that sin was still sin even if those other people didn't know it. So they sinned against God but because they were not Israelites they had no path back to relationship with him. Basically they get sent to hell because God had them be born into the wrong people group.

I wouldn't count on it, there are plenty of examples where the chariots didn't win.

But it's crazy that it happened even once right. I mean the all powerful God of the universe, thwarted by some iron chariots.
How do you make sense of that?
My vote is that after the Israelites had told everyone that God was on thier side... And then got beat, they made up a story about why they lost.
How do you explain it?

I do see what you did there. I've already said that by God having them killed saved their souls. God also is the giver of life and has the sole right to take it. Saving their souls is the main point.

If saving souls were the main point he would either only create souls that would be saved or just kill everybody who would get damned the instant they are born (Or maybe even before - Hosea). The fact that he does not do this by a long shot shows that there is something more important to God than saving the souls of his created beings. What do you think it is?

This is not the reason that God brought the flood. No where in the flood narrative does it say it was done for the glory of God

That's true, I extrapolating. And may even your answer to the prior question will clear this all up.

Their fate is sealed with taking the mark and afterward God sends this delusion so that they have no return available to them. He provides no escape from judgement any longer.

Exactly. This is yet another example God actively making sure some of his created souls go to hell that allegedly wasn't meant for them. In this case it is even worse though. God knew that these people are about to turn to him and receive grace but he decideves them specifically so that they won't get to have grace.
How is this a good God?

You are confusing making them evil rather than using their evil for His purpose.

Who made them? Who knit them together in thier mothers womb, who planned out all the days of thier lives in his book before the creation of the universe? So he k ew before he made them but he made them anyway so that his plan would work out the way he wanted it to... You know, the one where most people go to hell.

I have Scriptural support to believe that.

That God agrees with you about slavery?

That isn't the point you are making. You are not claiming that the slave didn't get payment for the leg but that he/she is beaten. The free man was beaten. So slave and free have been beaten. Is God saying breaking the free man's leg is ok? Does God condone breaking legs? You seem to think that its ok to break the leg of the free man since he gets money for it. So you seem to be saying it is ok to break legs as long as one pays compensation.

No I am saying that if a man's leg get broken by someone on purpose, that there should be a consequence. One that reflects the inherent worth and equal value of all humans. God doesn't say "thou shalt break legs!" but he commands that in one case there be a consequence and in the other none. The only difference is that one person is part of the I - group and that the other is just considered property. This is morally outrageous but you worship the God who commands this. Why?

Interesting. You were fine leaving this with quite a few other topics for another time but now you claim I was never able to answer it? Do you feel this is an honest appraisal of the situation?[

Oops I didn't mean for it to come across that way I was only trying to remind you of what that point was since it happened so long ago. My apologies you thought I was critical that you hadn't answered it. I agree that we have tabled it for now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you are genuinely interested in the question of whether the universe had a "beginning," then they are well worth your time.

Ok. This is relatively new and I didn't find many citations for this and so until I can read more about the theory and what other Scientists in the field are saying I will say that I will take a wait and see attitude.

You're saying that the word cannot be used figuratively? All its uses must be literal?

This is a literal component due to God speaking to Job about what God knew about the universe and what Job didn't.

You appeared to argue that intelligence requires an explanation, but then made an exception for Yahweh (who is intelligent) without justifying it.

Are you claiming that a Creator of the universe would need to prove His intelligence?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok. This is relatively new and I didn't find many citations for this and so until I can read more about the theory and what other Scientists in the field are saying I will say that I will take a wait and see attitude.

So you concede that we don't know whether the universe began in the sense in which you are using the word?

This is a literal component due to God speaking to Job about what God knew about the universe and what Job didn't.

And if you couldn't find some way of relating it to what we know scientifically then it would become a figurative component.

Are you claiming that a Creator of the universe would need to prove His intelligence?

You don't seem to be following. We aren't talking about proving whether he is intelligent, but explaining why he is. You stated that intelligence requires an explanation, but you made a special exception for Yahweh.

 

[Davian]

I asked you to summarize the material to tell me what you understand as the "fuzzy" line between non-living and living matter.

And I acknowledged this as you demonstrating your lack of familiarity with the subject.

Are you unable to present the material you have provided?

I am not here to promote my beliefs, or champion science. I am here to observe theists, to see how they react when their beliefs are challenged. Will they tackle the science involved, or be so arrogant as to declare their own ignorance on the subject as somehow reflecting reality?

My answer stands.

Obfuscation it is then. You are consistent.

My claim didn't include God.

Your claim did not exclude "God".

You said "the only evidence we have of life is life arising from existing life". From that I gather, you are claiming that we have no evidence of life arising from gods.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you concede that we don't know whether the universe began in the sense in which you are using the word?

I am saying that all evidence up until now has been that the universe had a beginning. This is a recent development and it could provide evidence that goes against the universe having a beginning.

And if you couldn't find some way of relating it to what we know scientifically then it would become a figurative component.

No, it would be the same as the universe having a beginning.

You don't seem to be following. We aren't talking about proving whether he is intelligent, but explaining why he is. You stated that intelligence requires an explanation, but you made a special exception for Yahweh.

Yes, but if the God of the Bible is true as I claim, we know that God was eternal and didn't need a cause. Isn't that what you are considering with the universe?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And I acknowledged this as you demonstrating your lack of familiarity with the subject.

I am not here to promote my beliefs, or champion science. I am here to observe theists, to see how they react when their beliefs are challenged. Will they tackle the science involved, or be so arrogant as to declare their own ignorance on the subject as somehow reflecting reality?

Obfuscation it is then. You are consistent.

Your claim did not exclude "God".

You said "the only evidence we have of life is life arising from existing life". From that I gather, you are claiming that we have no evidence of life arising from gods.

Very well then. Thanks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am saying that all evidence up until now has been that the universe had a beginning. This is a recent development and it could provide evidence that goes against the universe having a beginning.

Yes, a "beginning" in the sense that it started expanding 13.82 billion years ago. You are talking about a different kind of beginning, one in which the entire universe came to be ex nihilo. We don't know if that ever happened or even if it could happen.

Yes, but if the God of the Bible is true as I claim, we know that God was eternal and didn't need a cause. Isn't that what you are considering with the universe?

So why does the universe need a cause but your god doesn't? Presumably you'll say that the universe requires a cause because it "began to exist." See above for my response to that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, a "beginning" in the sense that it started expanding 13.82 billion years ago. You are talking about a different kind of beginning, one in which the entire universe came to be ex nihilo. We don't know if that ever happened or even if it could happen.

The universe didn't exist as far as space, matter, energy, or time regardless. This universe didn't exist until space, matter, energy and time were created.

So why does the universe need a cause but your god doesn't? Presumably you'll say that the universe requires a cause because it "began to exist." See above for my response to that.

I would have to say it depends on what you are claiming came before time existed in our universe and why you think the universe might not need a cause.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The universe didn't exist as far as space, matter, energy, or time regardless. This universe didn't exist until space, matter, energy and time were created.

You mean "created ex nihilo." As I pointed out before, we don't know if the universe "began" in the way you are describing.

I would have to say it depends on what you are claiming cam before time existed in our universe and why you think the universe might not need a cause.

If time began with the universe, then the universe has always existed, in the sense that it has existed for all time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean "created ex nihilo." As I pointed out before, we don't know if the universe "began" in the way you are describing.

I don't know if it was ex nihilo. All we know from the Bible account is that this universe we are currently residing within was created having no space, no matter, no energy and no time.

If time began with the universe, then the universe has always existed, in the sense that it has existed for all time.

It existed for all time since time. There was a time when time didn't exist.