Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.I was referring to posts #578 (yours) and #579 (Athée)
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.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 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.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 don't know if you realize it or not but the ONLY evidence that exists for life is life coming from life.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?
So you saw where you response with a question, rather than an answer.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.
I saw the post where I asked you a question after you asked me the same question that I had already answered.So you saw where you response with a question, rather than an answer.
In that context, she was already a believer before she made the request.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.
How far do we push this back?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?
Willful ignorance.I told you I didn't watch the videos.
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.Maybe you can summarize why this line between living and non-living matter is a "fuzzy" one.
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 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.
Why do you make these claims that you are unable to substantiate?I don't know if you realize it or not but the ONLY evidence that exists for life is life coming from life.
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.Willful ignorance.
Of course.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 repeatedly answered this and my answer stays the same.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?
http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/21169.aspxWhy do you make these claims that you are unable to substantiate?
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.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"?
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.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.
Indeed; you made the claim, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter".Of course.
I have repeatedly answered this and my answer stays the same.
That would take "gods" out of the picture, would it not?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.
I am still waiting for you to substantiate or retract your claim.If you have something that shows that life can arise from non-living matter present it or concede.
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?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.
My answer stands.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 claim didn't include God.That would take "gods" out of the picture, would it not?
If you are genuinely interested in the question of whether the universe had a "beginning," then they are well worth your time.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?
You're saying that the word cannot be used figuratively? All its uses must be literal?This actually made me laugh. How do you interpret stretched as anything but stretched?
You appeared to argue that intelligence requires an explanation, but then made an exception for Yahweh (who is intelligent) without justifying it.Have you heard of first cause?
You didn't answer my question about what you teach.
...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
But believers in most God concepts say they are aware of this extra, spiritual realm.There is no way a life form within this universe would be aware there was a whole different realm that existed outside of it.
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.but there are those things that don't seem logical to assume they arise from the natural world and need explanation as well
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?I hope you see that you were mistaken and I didn't claim I had disproved anything.
The reason ed doesn't have a Bible is because it is part of his plan to remain hidden.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.
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.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.
Morality is a property of goodness such that when ed withholds his evil, the goodness that he thereby allows, contains morality within it.The absence of evil can not be goodness because evil has no morality. Without morality, there is no goodness.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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?
Not yetI think that you meant you don't think He exists or have you changed your mind?
On what basis did you determine that God didn't create himself?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?
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?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?
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?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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
But it's crazy that it happened even once right. I mean the all powerful God of the universe, thwarted by some iron chariots.I wouldn't count on it, there are plenty of examples where the chariots didn't win.
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?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.
That's true, I extrapolating. And may even your answer to the prior question will clear this all up.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
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.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.
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.You are confusing making them evil rather than using their evil for His purpose.
That God agrees with you about slavery?I have Scriptural support to believe that.
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?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.
Oops I didn't mean for it to come across that wayInteresting. 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?[
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.If you are genuinely interested in the question of whether the universe had a "beginning," then they are well worth your time.
This is a literal component due to God speaking to Job about what God knew about the universe and what Job didn't.You're saying that the word cannot be used figuratively? All its uses must be literal?
Are you claiming that a Creator of the universe would need to prove His intelligence?You appeared to argue that intelligence requires an explanation, but then made an exception for Yahweh (who is intelligent) without justifying it.
So you concede that we don't know whether the universe began in the sense in which you are using the word?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.
And if you couldn't find some way of relating it to what we know scientifically then it would become a figurative component.This is a literal component due to God speaking to Job about what God knew about the universe and what Job didn't.
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.Are you claiming that a Creator of the universe would need to prove His intelligence?
And I acknowledged this as you demonstrating your lack of familiarity with the subject.I asked you to summarize the material to tell me what you understand as the "fuzzy" line between non-living and living matter.
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?Are you unable to present the material you have provided?
Obfuscation it is then. You are consistent.My answer stands.
Your claim did not exclude "God".My claim didn't include God.
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.So you concede that we don't know whether the universe began in the sense in which you are using the word?
No, it would be the same as 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.
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?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.
Very well then. Thanks.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
You mean "created ex nihilo." As I pointed out before, we don't know if the universe "began" in the way you are describing.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.
If time began with the universe, then the universe has always existed, in the sense that it has existed for all time.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.
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.You mean "created ex nihilo." As I pointed out before, we don't know if the universe "began" in the way you are describing.
It existed for all time since time. There was a time when time didn't exist.If time began with the universe, then the universe has always existed, in the sense that it has existed for all time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?