What if you seek and don't find?

SkyWriting · May 12, 2016

nightflight said:
How many years does a person have to seek God before he/she can give up? What if a person prays, reads, converses, all that, but receives no answer?

About 15 minutes. But time is not really an issue.
See "Answered Prayer" in my sig file.

Oncedeceived · May 13, 2016

Atheos canadensis said:
Obviously. But I asked whether this means I have chosen to be deceived by Satan or whether it just kinda happens.

You open the door and allow Satan in.

You've condensed several points from my post and only responded to one. And you seem to have once again missed the point for the one you did respond to. Let's start with that. I'll try to be very clear this time.

I have because the basis of the arguments are the same.

Your argument: Jesus said only God knows the exact date of his return, so he could not have been talking about his return in Luke 9:27 when he said some of his audience would be alive to witness it.

My point: We agree that Luke 21 is talking about the Second coming. But Luke 21:32 says "This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Jesus is stating that this generation (whichever generation you think that is, see below) will witness the second coming even though he said he didn't know when that would be. This completely refutes your argument that Luke 9:27 can't be about the second coming because Jesus didn't know when that would be. Understand? This doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it does dismantle that particular argument you're making.

There are logically three choices here. 1. Jesus somehow thought (even not knowing when His second coming would happen) that His disciples would be alive when it occurred and was simply wrong because He really didn't know. 2. Jesus didn't know the time of His second coming but thought it would be in the disciples life time and it didn't happen even though he thought it would. 3. Jesus was not speaking about the second coming but was referring to the transfiguration.

What would be the outcome of these choices? 1. The second coming didn't occur. 2. The second coming didn't occur. 3. The second coming didn't occur. Concerning the first two, they both imply that Jesus may have thought that the disciples would be alive but in both cases He still didn't have the knowledge of when it would occur. So why would HE claim HE didn't know but then tell them that they would be alive to see it? That being said, the same outcome would result from all three.

Now, I'd appreciate it if you directly addressed this point you glossed over:
The article you link does say that major changes in idea or subject are generally (but not always) broken by a blank space. The fact that Jesus's prophecy and the transfiguration are in separate chapters does not support your claim that they refer to the same thing. In fact the article you linked suggests that they are indeed referring to different things and that in Mark where they appear together it is simply an example of major ideas not being divided up as sometimes happened.

In Luke it is not in a separate chapter. So we have two examples and each present it differently. Which is accurate? How do we determine that? The most common explanation is that the verse is talking about the transfiguration, but as you noted there are those who don't agree with that. Now if all three choices result in the same way, what will tell us which one is correct? I say that the second coming is yet to happen and will happen in the generation that saw Israel back in its country. IF the second coming does not happen within that time frame I will be proven wrong.

You also declined to provide a real example of where Jesus talks about something imminent as if it were a long way in the future so I assume you concede your inability to do so.

Right, I couldn't off think of anything other than what I gave you.

Finally, you have still not provided any reasoning or scriptural support for your belief that "this generation" refers not to the audience but, rather misleadingly, to a generation 2000 years in the future. It's all well and good to assert that common sense and the spiritual sense are not necessarily the same, but this is insufficient to defend your position. You also have to support the position that the actual meaning is different from the obvious meaning. So please provide your support here. As discussed above, your argument about Jesus not knowing the date of his return (and could not therefore claim that a given generation would be alive to see it) is refuted by Luke 21:32, so in fact I have shown that "Jesus could be talking about the second coming when He didn't even know when that would happen". Unless you don't think Luke 21 is talking about the second coming? I look forward to a more substantial response. I understand there are more important demands on your time and I would prefer that you take longer to respond than having you condense and ignore so many points.

See above.

Was that you explaining God's nature to me? Because it didn't provide any answer the question I asked. How is it loving to set up a system where most of his beloved creations are made predestined to sin and be damned? How is it loving to create the majority of human souls to follow their predestined path to damnation and then punish them when they do follow that path God laid out for them before they ever existed?

Is it loving to force someone to love you? Can it even be done? God could force us to worship Him but I don't believe love can be forced...do you? Predestination is not proven. Do you have proof that God has predestined the majority of human souls to damnation?

You agreed that when God hardened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh could not in that moment have chosen otherwise. This means that in that moment, regardless of past or future actions, Pharaoh's free will was suspended by God's will that his heart be hardened. In fact, as Athée has pointed out, the fact that God had to intervene in that moment means that Pharaoh's will in that moment was to let the Jews go, but in that moment God overrode that free will. It doesn't matter what you think Pharaoh would have done later. The point is that in that moment God overrode Pharaoh's ability to make a choice of his own free will. Thus we have proof that God is sometimes willing to override our free will.

We do have proof that God sometimes will intervene in the will of a person. We have proof that due to God's sovereignty He will use a person's will to further His plans. HE has motivations for doing so and it will not alter the outcome of someone going to heaven or hell. That must be established for themselves. God says we have a choice of where we spend eternity.

In any case, you didn't actually respond to the point. The point was that, contrary to what you claimed, having his creations choose to be with him is not the most important thing to God because he is willing to reap children's souls before they have the chance to choose.

I did respond. It is more important for us to co-exist with God which is His plan.

Perhaps if I make the reasoning more explicit your responses will be more pertinent.

Premise: Free will (in this context) is the ability to choose to accept or reject God. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain why.

I agree. The children under the age of accountability would not have the ability to choose to accept or reject God and thus, they have no will to violate at the time they were taken. Do you think it would be more consistent and fair minded of God to send them all to hell instead?

Cool. But you didn't answer the question. Here it is again. Can the lack of evidence for something be considered to support the idea that something existed but was eliminated? I say no. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. It is possible and that is all I am saying. One can't claim that Genesis is wrong because it is possible to have had angiosperms or something like them in the Precambrian, but one can't claim it is support for it either. I claim the plants being in the Precambrian support that angiosperms or something like them were possible since plants would have plenty of time to evolve. That we don't have evidence for them now also doesn't preclude it in the future, just like when scientists claimed there was no way plants were in the Precambrian. So right now, I will concede that it is more parsimonious to conclude at the present time that angiosperms probably evolved in their current form in the Mesozoic.

It's a cop out because you're merely saying that God is omniscient so it must have been the right decision, even though you can't actually provide support for why it was the best decision.

Scripture supports it was the right decision. If what Scripture says about God's nature it by His nature would be the right decision as God knows the outcome of all His decisions because He has all knowledge.

Tell me, how would it have impeded the salvation of future people to have all the putative drownees plopped onto their own planet? Or shifted slightly out of phase with our plane of existence so they could never interfere or influence others? Or had their hearts and minds opened by divine intervention? We know from your insistence that all children go to Heaven that choosing God is not required for salvation if God really wants you saved., so why not do that? But no, just drown them all because I don't really care about those ones.

These are really good questions that in time you can ask Him yourself. I myself have many. I do know that God works except very rarely within the natural world by the natural world. There are times when He intervenes and acts in a supernatural way but generally speaking He works within it. Whisking away evil is not a solution. The evil is still there and God hates evil.

It's just how things are. Why do we need to invoke God to say that, as far as anyone has ever experienced, something can't be both A and Not A?

Now how is that an answer? Would you take it as an answer from me? If you asked me for a reason for something and I just said that is how things are would you think I answered the question?

That's the thing though. Everyone is comparing their religious beliefs to reality and the vast majority of people are completely convinced that their beliefs comport with reality.

Do they? So people who believe that the earth sets on turtles from the bottom all the way to the top really think that comports with reality? I mean I suppose that this could be said of everyone and not just the religious. Don't you agree really?

There's no way to actually establish which of the hundreds of religions or the thousands of sects of each religion is actually right (Atheist Pro-tip: none of them are!).

Why do you think that?

In contrast, science actually does winnow out the nonsense. Who knows how close we are to the truth, but we do know that we get closer and closer every time science allows us to discard an idea that doesn't end up fitting the evidence as well as another idea. The same is not true of faith. Otherwise we should expect to see religions and the innumerable subsets of those religions gradually collapsing as their adherents discovered through reason that their beliefs did not align with reality. That's not what we see.

Reason in any form winnows out the nonsense. I'm not defending all other religions and whether or not the adherents of others use reason in their beliefs. Christians are suppose to use reason and find evidence for their beliefs from the universe and its workings.

My argument is that God could have created us to be sinless. I base this on the assumption that God is omnipotent. I was under the impression that the only limitations to God's omnipotence were doing things that conflicted with his nature or things which were logical impossibilities (e.g. square circle). So it falls to you to explain why a sinless creation is either in conflict with God's nature or a logical impossibility. So far you have simply asserted this. Can you actually provide some argumentation? If not, then you cannot reasonably claim that a sinless created being is impossible. And again, you haven't supported the assertion that omniscience is required for sinlessness.

And God can not create Himself or others to be equal to Himself. Do you understand that premise? God can't create gods or another god. God is God. Nothing but God Himself can be sinless. It is only when we are dead and take on our spiritual form that we can be sinless and we can only get to that spiritual form by accepting Christ in this form. Now you could claim that God could have just made us as spirit in the beginning but we don't know if that is possible with all the requirements that God produced. We don't know that both physical life and spiritual must both be actualized for the plan of God to come to fruit.

As discussed above, we know based on the whole "all children go to heaven" argument of yours that having his creations choose him of their own free will is not necessary for salvation. Plus he sometimes subverts free will. So your explanation does not suffice to explain away mass genocide as the best possible option.

I understand your point, they have a sin nature but their sin has not been actualized. So perhaps there is no personal sin to bring justice against. Regardless, this is the plan and the rules God has set forth and whether or not we agree doesn't change it one bit.

They may have the same choice, but they don't have the same opportunity because God foreknows and predestines those who will make the right choice. He creates the majority of his children suffer damnation. How is this loving? Not a rhetorical question. I want you to explain how this comports with the concept of a loving parent.

God is loving but He also can't abide evil or sin. I don't think that HE creates anyone of His children to suffer damnation even knowing when He creates them they will. I believe that God gives everyone the choice and that is what causes them to suffer damnation or pay the price of their own sins. I love my children more than I could believe I could love anyone unconditionally but I do not condone when they do wrong and I allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions because I do love them and want them to learn from their experiences. I want to provide a good environment for them but even so they will sometimes do things I don't want them to. That doesn't mean I don't love them when they are facing those consequences. So loving and consequences for bad behavior are not mutually exclusive.

That's not much of a concession considering we both knew that was true already. As you point out, the most parsimonious theory isn't necessarily the most correct, but I don't think there is a better principle for choosing between competing hypotheses. How would you make such decisions without applying parsimony?
You didn't address the point that not knowing the all the details of angiosperms evolution doesn't make all theories about angiosperm evolution equally parsimonious. I assume that you concede this point.

You also didn't address the point that the rough agreement between fossil and molecular evidence supports the assumption that the fossil record actually does give us useful information about angiosperm evolution. I assume that you concede this point.

You also didn't address the the point that any uncertainty about angiosperm evolution is irrelevant to your argument that angiosperms evolved in the Precambrian, went extinct and then re-evolved 400 million years later. I assume you concede this point.

One can't claim that Genesis is wrong because it is possible to have had angiosperms or something like them in the Precambrian, but one can't claim it is support for it either. I claim the plants being in the Precambrian support that angiosperms or something like them were possible since plants would have plenty of time to evolve. That we don't have evidence for them now also doesn't preclude it in the future, just like when scientists claimed there was no way plants were in the Precambrian. So right now, I will concede that it is more parsimonious to conclude at the present time that angiosperms probably evolved in their current form in the Mesozoic.

You also didn't address the point that your argument about Precambrian plants suggesting the existence of Precambiran angiosperms is identical to my argument that Paleozoic tetrapods suggest the existence of Paleozoic horses and that if the latter is not convincing then neither is the former. I assume you concede this point.

See above.

You also didn't provide any quotes from the paper you posted that support your claims. I assume then that either such quotes don't exist or you don't actually have access to the paper.

Ah, I remember now. Yes. I went back and looked and it was an article that was given by a creation site which you would not have felt was a good source. It was about some pollen that would have pushed back the evolution of angiosperms into the Precambrian but other scientist claim that the pollen was probably a contaminate from later times.

Incorrect. Genesis does not state that "All living things of the time were in the water" (feel free to cite the verse that says this).

Why would it? That is nonsensical. It is talking about the sequence of life coming into existence and there is no reason to quantify that at this point in the sequence that other living things "will" live in the water at a later time but that they weren't in the water at this time. That is silly.

It says that "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it". So please explain in detail your reasoning and provide scriptural support for your position. Why should we think that when the author wrote "all living things" in the water he really meant "the things that were living in the water during the Cambrian"? In other words, how do you justify interpreting the words "all living things" in the water to mean a subset (those that were around in the Cambrian) of living things in the water?

I just noticed this on re-reading the passage too: it refers to the great creatures of the sea. The biggest Cambrian animals (certain species of anomalocaridid, if you're interested) were only about a meter long. Some estimates made from very fragmentary material give a maximum size of two meters. Even if there were two meter long anomalocaridids, this hardly seems like a "great creature of the sea". There are plenty of humans who are bigger than that. It sounds much more like it is meant to refer to whales and sharks and whatnot. Bad news for your interpretation. Thoughts?

It doesn't say Cambrian I'll concede that but that doesn't matter. This passage in my view begins first in the Paleozoic and to the Mesozoic.

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

Also, you have not supplied any support for the assertion that Genesis 1 records a chronological sequence from the "beginning to the present time". I assume that you cannot supply such support.

Oh, you don't believe there is a sequence being spoken of in Genesis 1? If not why not?

Interesting. I clicked it and it took me directly to post 451.

It went to the top of the page and not to any post.

That said, are you aware that this forum has a search function? You can search the exact text I quoted ("I have an article somewhere that claims that very thing") and set it to search for only posts made by Oncedeceived and search only in this thread. That's how I found it. Or you could have used the control (or command if you have a Mac) key in combination with the F key to search for that specific phrase on the page my link took you to. Just some helpful tips going forward so you can find your own posts as well as those of others should the need arise instead of relying on others to do it for you. Makes things more efficient.

Well thank you AC, I wasn't aware of that. I used to go to my profile page and could find most everything but that just doesn't work well unless you know exactly what you are looking for. I have a chromebook and I just got it recently and it is different and I don't know all the ways to use it yet.

Atheos canadensis · May 14, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
You open the door and allow Satan in.

So have I chosen to be deceived by Satan?

There are logically three choices here. 1. Jesus somehow thought (even not knowing when His second coming would happen) that His disciples would be alive when it occurred and was simply wrong because He really didn't know. 2. Jesus didn't know the time of His second coming but thought it would be in the disciples life time and it didn't happen even though he thought it would. 3. Jesus was not speaking about the second coming but was referring to the transfiguration.

What would be the outcome of these choices? 1. The second coming didn't occur. 2. The second coming didn't occur. 3. The second coming didn't occur. Concerning the first two, they both imply that Jesus may have thought that the disciples would be alive but in both cases He still didn't have the knowledge of when it would occur. So why would HE claim HE didn't know but then tell them that they would be alive to see it? That being said, the same outcome would result from all three.

You still don't seem to grasp the point I'm making here. Let's go through it again by having you answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that Luke 21 is talking about the Second coming?

2. Do you acknowledge that in Luke 21:32 Jesus predicts that "This generation shall not pass away" before he Returns?

In Luke it is not in a separate chapter. So we have two examples and each present it differently. Which is accurate? How do we determine that? The most common explanation is that the verse is talking about the transfiguration, but as you noted there are those who don't agree with that. Now if all three choices result in the same way, what will tell us which one is correct? I say that the second coming is yet to happen and will happen in the generation that saw Israel back in its country. IF the second coming does not happen within that time frame I will be proven wrong.

Based on the article you linked, my interpretation seems to be the more accurate one. Your article stated that major shifts in idea or topics were usually marked by page breaks, although sometimes they weren't. Your article does not say that the reverse ever happened, i.e. that related points were generally together but were sometimes divided by page breaks. This suggests that the division we see in Matthew means that the Transfiguration is a distinct topic from the prediction Jesus makes in the previous chapter.

You seem to be making the argument that this must be about the Transfiguration is that Jesus would have been wrong otherwise. That's not a real argument.

Right, I couldn't off think of anything other than what I gave you.

Okay. You have no examples of Jesus talking about something a imminent as if it were a long way off. This supports my interpretation that when Jesus talked about some of his audience being alive to see the events he described, implying that it would be many years in the future, he wasn't talking about an event that would transpire in 6 days.

See above.

Insufficient. You didn't make any substantive argument above for why it makes more sense to think that Jesus was referring to a generation 2000 years in the future instead of the people he was talking to. Your only argument is that your interpretation must be correct because otherwise Jesus was wrong. That Jesus was wrong is exactly the argument I'm making. It is begging the question for you to claim that Jesus couldn't have been wrong so your interpretation must be correct. So please provide an actual argument for why it makes more sense to interpret "this generation" as a generation 2000 years in the future rather than the people being addressed. Something more than "My interpretation is right because otherwise Jesus was wrong".

Is it loving to force someone to love you? Can it even be done? God could force us to worship Him but I don't believe love can be forced...do you? Predestination is not proven. Do you have proof that God has predestined the majority of human souls to damnation?

Athée has provided a number of biblical excerpts that tell us God predestines our actions. Most recently he posted one (Romans 8:29) wherein the author makes a distinction between simple foreknowledge and predestination. And of course we have it straight from the horse's mouth that most people are not going to make it to Heaven. Thus the majority of human souls are predestined for damnation.

We do have proof that God sometimes will intervene in the will of a person. We have proof that due to God's sovereignty He will use a person's will to further His plans. HE has motivations for doing so and it will not alter the outcome of someone going to heaven or hell. That must be established for themselves. God says we have a choice of where we spend eternity.

Cool, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making. The point is that at certain times God is willing to enforce his will at the cost of our free will as he did with Pharaoh. You seem to have agreed with that point by conceding that God does "intervene in the will of a person", but let's go through it again to make sure.

1.You agree that in that moment Pharaoh could not have opposed God's will that his heart be hardened. Correct?

2. If God had to intervene to harden Pharaoh's heart then in that exact moment (regardless of past or future actions) it was Pharaoh's will that his heart be softened. If you disagree, please explain why in detail.

I did respond. It is more important for us to co-exist with God which is His plan.

Very good. So you agree that having us co-exist with God is more important to him than having us choose to coexist with him.

I agree. The children under the age of accountability would not have the ability to choose to accept or reject God and thus, they have no will to violate at the time they were taken. Do you think it would be more consistent and fair minded of God to send them all to hell instead?

Fair mindedness is irrelevant to the point. The point is about whether God violates free will. So. You agree that free will in this context is about the opportunity to choose to accept or reject God. It doesn't matter that the children can't make the decision yet, it matters that they are being prevented from making that decision. If free will is about the chance to make that decision and the chance to make that decision is removed, they don't have free will. Or, put more abstractly which may make it clearer:

X requires Y. You remove Y. Can you still have X?

Scripture supports it was the right decision. If what Scripture says about God's nature it by His nature would be the right decision as God knows the outcome of all His decisions because He has all knowledge.

You've only asserted the same thing again. Scripture says God is good, so whatever he does must be good even if you can't actually make his actions comport with goodness.

These are really good questions that in time you can ask Him yourself. I myself have many. I do know that God works except very rarely within the natural world by the natural world. There are times when He intervenes and acts in a supernatural way but generally speaking He works within it. Whisking away evil is not a solution. The evil is still there and God hates evil.

Fair enough, I suppose. But when God killed everyone, didn't their evil souls still exist? The evil is still around, so it seems that killing everyone doesn't eliminate the existence of their evil. Or does that not count because the evil ones are being tormented for eternity?

Anyway, this doesn't address the option of God producing in everyone that momentary flash of true understanding of his love and glory etc. Maybe some would still turn away, but it seems likely that after once experiencing that love and glory many or even most would thereafter choose God. We know that such experiences tend to have profound and often lifelong effects on people.

Now how is that an answer? Would you take it as an answer from me? If you asked me for a reason for something and I just said that is how things are would you think I answered the question?

I also used the example of non-contradiction and pointed out that as far as anyone has ever observed, something cannot be simultaneously A and Not A. There are effectively unlimited things to observe even just on our planet and billions of people throughout history have never even once observed one of those things to be both itself and not itself. That's good enough evidence for me that this is true.

Do they? So people who believe that the earth sets on turtles from the bottom all the way to the top really think that comports with reality? I mean I suppose that this could be said of everyone and not just the religious. Don't you agree really?

Yes, I think people believe that their beliefs comport with reality. With science we can establish whether our beliefs actually do comport with reality or whether they comport better with reality than another belief. Not so for most religious beliefs. Protestants and Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc are equally convinced by both faith and reason that their beliefs comport with reality and they will continue to do so because faith is not actually a good way of knowing if you're approaching truth.

Why do you think that?

Why do I think what? That none of them are correct? Because I'm an atheist.

Reason in any form winnows out the nonsense. I'm not defending all other religions and whether or not the adherents of others use reason in their beliefs. Christians are suppose to use reason and find evidence for their beliefs from the universe and its workings.

And yet there are hundreds of different Christian denominations all equally convinced by reason-guided faith that their particular set of beliefs is correct. Clearly faith even bolstered by reason is not capable of actually making apparent which specific belief is the correct one.

And God can not create Himself or others to be equal to Himself. Do you understand that premise? God can't create gods or another god. God is God. Nothing but God Himself can be sinless. It is only when we are dead and take on our spiritual form that we can be sinless and we can only get to that spiritual form by accepting Christ in this form. Now you could claim that God could have just made us as spirit in the beginning but we don't know if that is possible with all the requirements that God produced. We don't know that both physical life and spiritual must both be actualized for the plan of God to come to fruit.

You're just asserting again that only God can be sinless. You haven't presented any scriptural support for this claim. You're also conflating sinlessness with being God, a clearly false premise as evinced in this very post where you state that our spirits (which are created beings) can become sinless. My argument relies on the scripturally-supported notion that God can do anything that isn't a logical impossibility or doesn't violate his nature. Your assertion currently enjoys no such scriptural support. And since you brought it up, could you provide the scripture that tells us God can't create anyone like himself?

I understand your point, they have a sin nature but their sin has not been actualized. So perhaps there is no personal sin to bring justice against. Regardless, this is the plan and the rules God has set forth and whether or not we agree doesn't change it one bit.

I agree that if God existed our opinion of his plan wouldn't affect it. But the point remains that God is willing to grant salvation without the individual actually choosing him.

God is loving but He also can't abide evil or sin. I don't think that HE creates anyone of His children to suffer damnation even knowing when He creates them they will. I believe that God gives everyone the choice and that is what causes them to suffer damnation or pay the price of their own sins. I love my children more than I could believe I could love anyone unconditionally but I do not condone when they do wrong and I allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions because I do love them and want them to learn from their experiences. I want to provide a good environment for them but even so they will sometimes do things I don't want them to. That doesn't mean I don't love them when they are facing those consequences. So loving and consequences for bad behavior are not mutually exclusive.

That comparison falls flat for me. You're talking about, for example, letting your kid get detention for misbehaving in school or something like that (or even something more serious like a crime, I assume). With God we're talking about eternal damnation for something that he knew in advance most of his children would not be able to avoid doing. And if we are to believe the passages about predestination, he even set most of his children up to fail.

Even without predestination, God refuses to intervene even momentarily to save his children despite the evidence that he is willing to intervene when it suits him. If you knew your child was going to go out and kill someone in cold blood, landing them in jail for the rest of their life, would you say nothing because they should be allowed to choose their own path? Would you tell them once or twice that they shouldn't do it? Or would you do everything in your power to convince them to make the right choice?

I agree. It is possible and that is all I am saying. One can't claim that Genesis is wrong because it is possible to have had angiosperms or something like them in the Precambrian, but one can't claim it is support for it either. I claim the plants being in the Precambrian support that angiosperms or something like them were possible since plants would have plenty of time to evolve. That we don't have evidence for them now also doesn't preclude it in the future, just like when scientists claimed there was no way plants were in the Precambrian. So right now, I will concede that it is more parsimonious to conclude at the present time that angiosperms probably evolved in their current form in the Mesozoic.

Excellent. You must therefore concede that, according to the scientific evidence currently available, Genesis is wrong when it says angiosperms were created prior to animals.

One can't claim that Genesis is wrong because it is possible to have had angiosperms or something like them in the Precambrian, but one can't claim it is support for it either. I claim the plants being in the Precambrian support that angiosperms or something like them were possible since plants would have plenty of time to evolve. That we don't have evidence for them now also doesn't preclude it in the future, just like when scientists claimed there was no way plants were in the Precambrian. So right now, I will concede that it is more parsimonious to conclude at the present time that angiosperms probably evolved in their current form in the Mesozoic.

One can't claim with 100% certainty that Genesis is wrong, but by your own admission I am justified in claiming that the current evidence supports the conclusion that Genesis is wrong.

Ah, I remember now. Yes. I went back and looked and it was an article that was given by a creation site which you would not have felt was a good source. It was about some pollen that would have pushed back the evolution of angiosperms into the Precambrian but other scientist claim that the pollen was probably a contaminate from later times.

Okay.

Why would it? That is nonsensical. It is talking about the sequence of life coming into existence and there is no reason to quantify that at this point in the sequence that other living things "will" live in the water at a later time but that they weren't in the water at this time. That is silly.

You're the one claiming that the ancient Hebrews possessed knowledge of origins consistent with modern science. So if the divinely-guided author meant to say "Then God created the first sea creatures..." or something like that, why not write something to that effect? Instead the author talks about "every living thing with which the water teems". All inclusive. Present tense. Not referring to the way things were in the past, not referring to a subset of aquatic animals. Please address this issue.

You've also ignored the following point, so I'd appreciate a response this time. Here it is again:
Genesis 1 refers to the great creatures of the sea. The biggest Cambrian animals (certain species of anomalocaridid, if you're interested) were only about a meter long. Some estimates made from very fragmentary material give a maximum size of two meters. Even if there were two meter long anomalocaridids, this hardly seems like a "great creature of the sea". There are plenty of humans who are bigger than that. It sounds much more like it is meant to refer to whales and sharks and whatnot. Bad news for your interpretation that Genesis is talking about Cambrian fauna. Thoughts?

It doesn't say Cambrian I'll concede that but that doesn't matter. This passage in my view begins first in the Paleozoic and to the Mesozoic.

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

Ugh. This is the third or fourth time you've copied and pasted that into your response. Re-asserting your interpretation is completely unproductive; you need to support your interpretation. My arguments rely on the words actually written in Genesis, yours rely on what you want Genesis to say.

Oh, you don't believe there is a sequence being spoken of in Genesis 1? If not why not?

I believe Genesis 1 is recording a sequence. But that's not the claim you made. You said that Genesis records a chronological sequence from the "beginning to the present time". I challenged you to support that claim. Can you? Because based on the actual words written it seems like Genesis is recording a chronological sequence from the beginning to six days (with mornings and evenings) later.

It went to the top of the page and not to any post.

Well thank you AC, I wasn't aware of that. I used to go to my profile page and could find most everything but that just doesn't work well unless you know exactly what you are looking for. I have a chromebook and I just got it recently and it is different and I don't know all the ways to use it yet.

You're welcome. It is a useful tool for tracking down old threads and relevant posts.

Oncedeceived · May 17, 2016

Athée said:
We only know of one universe, so in 1 out of 1 cases the constants happened the way we observe them. We can hypothesize that they could have been different but until we have another universe that corroborates that hypothesis, it is just speculation. It could be the case that all the constants we observe are in fact the only possibility, not for getting a universe with human life, but for a universe to exist at all. The point is that we just don't know and so any probability argument is ultimately just a thought experiment.

Actually, it isn't left to speculation. Astrophysicists have incredible computers that can change and tweak the measurements to determine that the universe really is fine tuned for life as we know it and for the universe to exist at all. No longer do we have to wonder what changes could be orchestrated with the constants and not only those but the forces that are as important for life and our universe and find that it stretches credulity for this universe just to be the way it is due to a lucky coincidence. In fact, not only would the constants need to be different but different laws of physics would be necessary.

So basically design is like porn? We know it when we see it!

That is what makes the appearance of design have the appearance of being designed.

But seriously you are saying we will know just by looking/studying something if it has been designed?
One way I would say of knowing what something is, is to compare it to things it is not. Can you give me an example of something that is not designed?
I would say that the patten of pine needles on a random forrest floor is not designed would you agree?

We could compare things that someone believes would be a product of random non-designed elements. However, the order of the universe is probably a better way to determine what design IS rather than figuring out what it isn't. We could say that the pattern of pine needles on a forest floor is due to gravity, wind and even the possibility of animal activity. The events that transpire in the universe do so due to the order that is the underbelly of all existence. Order did not evolve. The order of the universe runs through the entire existence.

I don't follow your logic here at all. How does having knowledge impose constraints on actions. I could very easily know that Pythagoras had a valid proof of his theory and still claim that it is false.

It would be deceptive of course but I would not in any way be constrained from doing so simply by having the knowledge of Pythagorean theory. Please demonstrate how knowledge creates restraints on behaviour.

You could indeed but someone that understands the theory is going to know you don't know the theory at all if you think it is false. Knowledge and the truth of that knowledge is what constrains the actions.

I don't see how any of this makes Ed a logically impossible being. Yes he knows what good is but his goal is to maximize evil and so he wills that which is not good. Sometimes he allows some good to occur but only because in his omnipotent omniscience he knows that such goods will ultimately lead to even greater evil. How have you refuted this in any way?

Ed wants the great harm, he wants evil. We have a very loose moral compass because the good it steers us towards is part of Ed's ultimate plan for producing the most possible amount of evil.

The nature of evil-god’s moral character if He has all moral knowledge and does evil does not provide the best explanation for the gradations of goodness (and evil) we observe since a more complete paradigm can be postulated beyond evil-god as found in Good-God.
Lets take a look at the overall picture and their outcomes here:

What happens when we believe that Evil God exist? We will live in fear and suffer having only tastes of good but be suffer greater evil. In the end evil God will torment and/or annihilate us regardless of whether we believe in him or not.
The believer of the evil God If Good God exists will lose any chance of eternal life.

What happens when we believe that Good God exists? We live our lives loving others as ourselves and doing for others as Jesus asks. In the end we co-exist for an eternity with God.
Those who didn't believe in Good God will in the end will suffer eternal damnation.
If the evil god exists and not Good God we will be tormented and/or he will annihilate us.

What happens when we believe that no god exists? WE live our lives according to the meaning we give life ourselves and others of that mindset may live as if they will surely die with no afterlife and so take as much as they can get while alive.
In the end if the evil god exists you will be tormented and/or annihilated.
If Good God exists you will suffer eternal damnation.
If you believe that no god exists and no god exists, then you simply believed what was true.

IF Good God exists, then an unbeliever of no gods and the believer of the evil god have the same outcome.
If the evil God exists, then all will be tormented and/or annihilated.
If no god exists, then you were right and you live and die and cease to exist.

It seems that Pascal might have been right, we have more to gain if the Good God exists and the unbeliever has everything to lose.

You are implying here that in fact the flood was local ( I agree that it was) but later in this post you are going to claim that all of humanity is descended from Noah. That would only be the case if all the rest of humanity were whipped out at that time. Did this happen by some other means, not the flood?

Well you are right.

I take this completly on faith... Not blind faith? What?

It is not blind faith that I derive my position but all the facets of reality that confirm my position.

I remember you saying that science is very important to you and that you want to know the truth of these things. If that was a genuine sentiment and you would like to know about the science I can link you to other threads in Christian forums that discuss the evidence (Or lack thereof) for a global flood.

All I would be doing in doing so would be to bowing to authority in such a case. I would not have enough knowledge on my own to determine the weight of that evidence. I have knowledge in other areas of science that allows me to determine the weight of the evidence provided.

This is incorrect. Spread out is a verb and raqia is a noun. It can mean" something that is spread out" however. But it is an awful stretch ( ) to interpret it this way. In genesis 7:11 and 8:2 actual windows in this thing open up to allow raid to fall through. Water that had until the windows were opened been resting on top of the raqia. There are more indicators if you want them but suggesting that the firmament was not imagined as a solid object are not founded on a careful reading of scripture.
In light of this how is it that when we send rockets to the moon, they don't have to pass through this firmament and through the waters beyond?

Raqia is used in the Bible many times and not all of the instances are about a solid object.

This is a fair point. You can say that the punishment was for all the instances and this one just happened to be the final instance. The problem is that this final instance would not have happened at all except that God made it happen.

It would have happened just later than God wished.

That said I notice that you didn't actually respond to the point I was making so I will repeat it. You are making a logical error when you say that pharaohs past sins mean that he was not forced to sin in this specific instance. God knows what pharaoh will do ahead of time, if pharaoh was going to refuse to let the people go, God would not have to get involved in any way to accomplish his purpose. But God did get involved by hardening the heart of pharaoh, because he knew that by free will pharaoh was actually going to let the people go. This means that God ordered pharaoh to do something and then overrode free will in order to make sure pharaoh couldn't do it. Please specifically explain how this is not God forcing pharaoh to disobey a direct order from God.

I already have cited this verse for you several times. God specifically hardens the heart of pharaoh so that he will disobey gods direct command. Maybe you don't think it is sinful to disobey a direct command from God? Is that why you are confused about this?

The point is that the action that God took did not alter the end game. Pharaoh disobeyed God before and after the intervening of God. So God may have denied Pharaoh his own will in this instance does not change the outcome of Pharaoh's eternal destination. In fact, God said that He made sure that Pharaoh was placed in history where he was for this purpose. This is the predestination I was speaking about. He didn't predestine Pharaoh to damnation but knew in any world Pharaoh would choose not to obey God so God placed Him where He needed Him for His own purposes.

We have talked about punishment before and I think it would be appropriate to punish pharaoh from keeping slaves... But an appropriate punishment for pharaoh does not include killing other people's children. Why do you seem to think it is justified?

Yes, and when we talked about it before I clearly said that those people had been responsible for suffering of the slaves. Everyone had slaves, and everyone treated them horrendously. Not only that but they went to great lengths to make sure the Jews didn't gain an advantage in population including infanticide.

You are contradicting yourself. On one had you are saying God gave you his morality and wrote it into your heart. And on the other you are saying that the things God does (which are therefore moral) bother your heart.
But wait you say... You are not talking ablit things God does...
To the Bible we go once again!

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord , do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 NIV
http://bible.com/111/isa.45.7.NIV

Note many translations don't even give God the courtesy of cleaning it up to say disaster or calamity, they actually translate this word as "evil". Which of course he did because he created and allows Satan to operate.

First of all He created Satan as a beautiful being. Satan as well as humans was awarded free choice and his choice was to sin. Sin is not a physical created "thing". Evil is the privation of God's goodness. So while God created the universe and everything in it and is responsible for it, sin is the lack of moral perfection. Therefore, God is responsible and agrees He is but Evil is not part of Him but the lack of Him.

So now how do you explain that the things God does and allows conflict with the morality he has written on your heart?

Our morality is not perfect as is God's. God has all the moral answers and acts upon that morality in the most moral way knowing all ways. We don't. So we have this ingrained morality that applies to us. We are not to kill because we don't have omniscience. So our moral compass is set on human morality, while God is sovereign and pure Good and His morality is the foundation of ours. We do not have the right to take life unjustified and we don't have all the information available to Him. So our moral standard is based on our position as the created. There is no conflict in reality. God will only act in His moral goodness, with the benefit of all mankind his goal.

You are correct. My apologies. It wouldn't have been every family. Do you think that every family that had a male child was involved in killing Hebrew babies? Please also include your explanation for why the firstborn of all the animals were killed.

Do you think that matters? If so why?

I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase it?

Wow, having three children under the age of six can really affect coherent conversation. Sorry. What I was trying to say...How do you know that the motivation that God gave in the Bible concerning why He did what He did is incorrect?

Lying, when it causes harm (physical or otherwise) is not moral, however it could still be the most moral action in a given situation.

So would you say that lying is always immoral even if it might be the most moral action in a given situation?

Morality is a social construct to some extent which is why morality is different from one time and place to another.
It means that sometimes causing some harm is the most moral thing to do because it avoids an even greater harm.

Yet, what of the person that claims that causing harm that is not avoiding greater harm is moral? Do you agree to disagree or do you claim they are being immoral?

Fair point. I think morality is a group project. We as a society agree that it is wrong for an adult to have sex with a young child. This has not always been true but morality has shifted by consensus and we now have laws that prohibit such acts because we understand them as harmful.

It would be nice if we had a true morality shift but while we have laws that prohibit such acts there are other cultures that allow them. So their "group" project makes the statement that having sex with a young child is moral. If morality is based on the community, group, culture or society then this is moral act. Do you agree? If not why?

This is an irrelevant response. Yes God would know but my request was that you justify the statement that all Egyptian families with a male offspring had been involved in the killing of Hebrew children. Do you actually think this is true, how do you know?

What I believe is that those that did not have first hand responsibility of killing a Hebrew child would not have most likely lost a child. They would probably only lose an animal. I believe that is why there were firstborn animals included in the killing. All the Egyptians were responsible for the suffering of the Hebrews so all must suffer punishment but if they did not have the blood of the Hebrew children on their hands they would not see that punishment put on them but they would have punishment in the death of their firstborn animals.

They did. However this verse that actually is directly part of the plague of the firstborn section directly contradicts what you are suggesting. Please explain your position in light of the following:

There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal.’ Then you will know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.
Exodus 11:6‭-‬7 NIV
http://bible.com/111/exo.11.6-7.NIV

Feel free to read the context around it if you like, it is talking about the deaths of the firstborn.

They either lost their first born child if they had taken one of the Hebrews or an animal if not.

To comfort himself maybe? But I don't see how it is relevant. It is clear that in 2 Samuel, David is not speaking on behalf of God at that moment. He is a father who has lost a child and is expressing the hope of seeing him again. How do you justify taking this one mortal voice in opposition to what God actually says about the human condition?

Why would He express this hope if He was unaware of the possibility? What would inform Him that He even might see Him again?

First I don't know what you mean by "inequity of idolatry" what is it and how is it passed on?
Second it is clear that God actually punishes children for the sin of thier parents :

“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Exodus 20:4‭-‬5 NIV
http://bible.com/111/exo.20.4-5.NIV

So yes we are talking about idolatry in this case. But here is my question. Why are the children being punished specifically for the sins of the parents?
Either sin is passed along to the next generation, or it isn't and God is punishing them for a sin they didn't commit. Which is it?

It is not clear that God actually punishes children for the sins of their parents. I could provide Scripture that claims the opposite, now you can claim...ah a contradiction then. Actually not, it is their own sin. Example: A mother uses drugs and the daughter follows the same way of life and her daughter after her and again her daughter. All sin and all share the same guilt of the mother four generations from her.

I the Lord...visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:5; cf. Numbers 14:18)

The fathers lead the children into sin to the third and fourth generation and who hate God.

OK so a mortal, not speaking on behalf of God at that moment is in disagreement with the rest of scripture. Why side with him? Because it is comforting to believe that babies go to heaven? I would think you would prefer to side with the biblical authors who are speaking for God.

No, actually. I prefer to side with God from personal experience and God's assurance that this is true.

Are you kidding me?
In my question to you I specifically said predestination is not the same as knowing ahead of time.
From Merriam Webster:

: the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed.

Now please answer the question as I put it to you.

What does fate have to do with it? Think about that? IF everything is decided by God how does fate have a thing to do with it?

Please explain how God predestined my choices and how I also have free will. Please remember that predestination doesn't mean "had knowledge of ahead of time" it means actually insuring that something will happen, it means setting the future, determining fate.etc.
Good luck

Romans 8:29-30 "For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"

Did God foreknow you? IF God foreknew you and we know He did if He knows everything then He predestined you and every person ever born to be conformed to the image of His Son. Free will comes in by choice. It is your choice to go in the path that God destined you for or for you to take your own. We have passages that claim that God predestined certain people for certain purposes as well. However, that will not overrule man's own choice.

Once could you give me book chapter and verses when you quote from the Bible. It will help me answer your questions more effectively.
Thanks. I will be happy to address these when I know where they are from

Sorry, I promise I'll do better.

Irrelevant Sure she k ew it was wrong afterwards because she had already eaten the fruit and now had knowledge of good and evil. But she was punished for an act that she took before she had that knowledge and that is the point. She was just like a child, without knowledge of good and evil so why is she morally accountable but children are not?

Well that is a good point but does it mean that she was unaware and thus not responsible for her actions? Please read this link I am providing. It is very informative and I think so profound. I hope you read it.

http://www.westmont.edu/~work/faq/edensetup.html

1. Murder - Did Satan murder Lot's family?
Did God murder the infants he drowned in the flood?

No.
Is it murder when someone who is found guilty of some heinous crime is put to death by the penal system?

2. Rape.
Is statutory rape actually rape? As in, can it be considered a rape even if it is consensual? If a 40 year old man gets "consent" from a 5 year old after giving her candy is it rape or not?
Just trying to get a handle on your definitions.

Good point. That is where the subjective part of the equation comes in. Do we think it is rape in these two examples? I say yes. Why, because I do believe we have a moral compass that informs us of its immorality. Can people justify immorality...yes. So we see cultures that don't think that rape of a five year old is wrong if they gave her candy and so she said yes. Do it mean it is then moral? I say no, I say no because I believe there is an objective moral standard. I have reason to denounce the action on a true moral basis but one who claims that morality is a group project has not moral standard to hold up and against those who claim it is moral. It comes from authority. There must be an authority that is above our own.

3. Lying. Is it possible to lie by omission? Is it lying if you intentionally decive someone without using words? Are you guilty of lying if you tell someone to go lie in your behalf?

Nuances of sin can be quite enticing. Yet we objectively have a standard in which we rely on to tell us that yes it is lying if you intentionally deceive someone without using words. Yes, we objectively lie if we ask others to lie for us. And yes, it is possible to lie by omission. All objectively immoral based on a moral standard ingrained within us. Can people lie by omission and call it moral? Yes, is it. No. When a society collectively claim that something is moral...say marrying young girls as young as six...is it moral?

Looking forward to exploring these with you

I look forward to our conversation as I like you and God is using you to enlighten me which is two positive elements in all this.

Predestination means that events are fixed ahead of time. Individual events are shapped by choices so if the events (the results of choices) are predestined, then the choices are as well. As such all the verses we have already cited about predestination are examples of this principle.

So God has predestined that someone chooses vanilla over chocolate ice cream on the fourth of July in 2018?

So when you pray to the holy spirit for guidance, it responds by telling you half truths?

This is a very hard thing to explain. When we read the Bible, we may get some idea completely on our own that is not accurate. So we go down that path of inaccuracy and learn more by doing that than if God had simply shown us our mistake in the beginning. Does that make sense to you? For instance, if someone believes something from the Bible which is false then God will allow this to lead to the real answer.

For example?

I can't find what context this was in and I went back to see and can't find what came before that statement. I'm not sure what I was talking about..lol

So did God also inspire the bits that got added? The forgeries too?

I don't believe there are forgeries in the sense that you mean.

That is fine and I appreciate your honesty. I hope you are not using ignorance as a refuge to not confront a difficult question but that is not what we are asking here.
I will ask my actual question again:

So if I could show you, hypothetically, that no global flood ever happened, how would that modify your belief in the Bible or in God?

It would do nothing about my belief of God. As far as the flood, I don't have the luxury of taking the years it would take to become adequately informed on the topic. Without this knowledge I would be unable to assess the evidence or interpret it.

So the Bible tells you things but sometimes it is wrong, and you know this because God tells you directly?

No.

Calling it a paradox is not a get out of jail free card. A paradox is still a logical contradiction, therefore your notion that free will and predestination can co-exist is logical impossibility. As you have said in other posts God can't create a square circle because it is logically impossible. So either predestination does not exist and the Bible is simply wrong about its existence.
Or
There is no such thing as free will...

No, it is not "still" a contradiction. Paradox: a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

So which is it?

Both.

Because the Bible says so as we have already established. But here you go again:
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Romans 8:29 NIV
http://bible.com/111/rom.8.29.NIV

There are of course more but this is a good one. Notice how foreknew and predestined are distinct items in this verse, showing that yes he knows ahead of time but more than this, he actually predestined the results (thier salvation and sanctification) as well.

As I said earlier in this post: All are predestined but not all will follow their destiny.

As far as I know there is no single verse that explicitly says this. However it can be extrapolated. We know that narrow is the way and few are they that find it... Meaning something less than half of people make it to heaven.
From that verse I just cited we know that God was actively involved in choosing who, he predestined some people to be saved.
We also know that all those who God calls will be saved:
All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
John 6:37‭-‬40 NIV
http://bible.com/111/jhn.6.37-40.NIV

So Jesus will get all (every single one) of the people God sends to him. God sends him the ones God has elected for salvation. Not everyone is saved.
Put this all together and you can see that God does not call everyone and give them those nudges towards himself that you are saying he does.

Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

Proverbs 8:4 "To you, O men, I call, And my voice is to the sons of men.

Matthew 9:13 "To you, O men, I call, And my voice is to the sons of men.

Acts 2:21
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

I don't know what they were thinking when they invented that one. If I had to guess I would say that Jesus was meant to cover all sin but they knew that since the human heart is inherently evil and can never choose God on its own, that God would only act to call some hearts back to himself.

Or everyone is predestined for Heaven but has a choice in the matter.

Please cite the old Testament verses where this is described. Better yet if those verses could be ones where God is talking that would be great.... I'll wait

Your wait is over.

Romans 8:3 2 For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the righteous standard of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.…

Galatians 20
I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God. For if righteousness comes through the Law, Christ died for nothing.”

Interssting that you say we should follow his lead and then skip right on past the verses where Jesus actually says to obey the law and the prophets. Why did you skip over those and just go to the love God and everyone else? They are part of the same speech after all!

See above.

I agree with the first bit. Often the alleged contradictions are simply not there and lots of atheis4sotes that have these listed are not very rigorous or charitable in thier readings. As for the agreement that is there I don't find it all that remarkable since the texts we have preserved were specifically chosen and One of the criteria was that they agree with each other.
That said my actual question wasn't, are you impressed with how much the texts agree, it was how do you make sense of the times when it doesn't. Did God not care if his holy book got things right?

I believe the message is intact and in line with what God inspired.

This is illogical. I use scripture to point out inconsistencies. This only works because you claim that the Bible is true. If you want to conceed that the Bible is just a human made book with no special inspiration then I will stop using it to make my case. As long as you insist it is divinely inspired I can point out problems.
You are welcome to use scripture to make your case but as you do you need to refer that I don't think it is inspired.

I don't care whether or not you "think" it is not inspired or not because my point was valid.

So now the flood is global again? OK well even if you were correct about that (and you are not) by the time God gets to choosing a team it seems that the other groups had forgotten about him. How does this make it any better that he only chooses some of his image bearers to love and lead but not others?

I don't agree with that assessment.

This is sounding increasingly desperate....

Projecting again are we?
And I quote from the Bible once again :
The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
Judges 1:19 NIV
http://bible.com/111/jdg.1.19.NIV
In a chapter devoted to the military conquering of neighbours, in a book about same, what do you think this verse means when it says they were unable to drive out the people from the plains? Did they try to swat them with fly shatters? Offer to give them all a lift in an F-150?
It obviously means drive them out by military means and they failed.
Good try though [/Quote]I don't doubt God has all the power He needs for whatever purposes He has. I don't find anything in the passage that tells me they went to war. It reads as if they were too afraid to drive them out.

God would what? This line of questioning is not about knowing if it is true love or not. I have no idea what "God would" has to do with my question. Please explain

God wanted people to really love Him, not be forced or created with false love towards Him.

This was summarized above.

Sure I have, you are making the mistake of thinking that the choice about salvation is the only choice we have. It is actually really simple. He makes that one choice for us, that we will love and worship him, then gives us free will to choose how we will do that and all other things that are not salvation related.
Explain how this is a logical impossibility or conceed that it is a valid possibility.

I've addressed this above.

I enjoy it, sometimes I am able to move people off positions that have harmful repercussions for themselves and others...and I enjoy it

What harmful repercussions are you referring to?

Is this meant to be in jest or are you seriously proposing that bible verses were not used by Christian slave owners in the south to justify having slaves?

The Bible clearly says we are not suppose to kidnap others and make them slaves.

I apologize maybe it was not disingenuous, maybe just ignorance of the scriptures. I was ignorant myself as a believer because it is easier to just stick to the new Testament and the feel good verses. But once again I go back to your Bible to point out that you are mistaken.
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. “ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Leviticus 25:42‭, ‬44‭-‬46 NIV

How is this different from what I said?
http://bible.com/111/lev.25.42-46.NIV

So there you have it. God flat out says you can buy slaves. Not only that but he does so knowing that owning slaves and the treatment of them is ruthless.

Ruthless compared to what?

Can we stop pretending now that God doesn't Co done slavery and that they were all helpless refugees?

You haven't shown that what I said was incorrect.

Excellent! And now how do you justify your earlier statement that you think slavery is immoral, God wrote this in your heart you said, but here is God condoning slavery.... Discuss...

I've argued about this and said all there is to say. We have to agree to disagree I guess.

You haven't said beating a slave is permissible because such a position would be reprehensible.... But God doesn't seem to agree with you in that.
Second does the fact that a slave girl, given as property to a man by her master, can receive the benefits of being a wife after she is used, make it OK in your book?

So you would rather her prostitute herself? What options were open for her?

How convenient....

Yes, I suppose so.

This is laughable. You seem to be live that your God is almost entirely powerless! All things are possible with God... Except reforming a corrupt culture of course. I have given you logically possible ways God could have dealt with this, you have yet to demonstrate that my solutions are logically impossible or in some way inconsistent with God.

Well like I said, you can run those by Him when you are face to face.

Please prove that all the individuals you include in that category "the jews" can trace thier lineage back, unbroken and undiluted, to the time of Moses.

I'll wait...

Your wait is over.
http://forward.com/culture/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/

In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

Read more: http://forward.com/culture/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/#ixzz48w9iAbCt

Please read my responses more carefully and try to respond to the points I am actually making. I said that religious Jews, (the people you think God chose and spoke to, the ones who's scriptures we are discussing in this case) do not agree with you.

They will.

Adresse above, looking forward to your explanation of why "you may buy slaves from the nations around you" is not condoning.

Who was doing the selling?

Lol

It isn't universally objective no. It determines what is situational moral, which can often be objective (but not always)

If it is not universally moral then there is no standard of morality but what one person subjectively thinks is moral. So you have no authority to determine which morality is really moral.

Please prove this assertion.

I have above. There is a culture that believes it to be moral to marry and have marital sex with children as young as six. Do you really believe this practice is moral? If not why? If moral standards are not universal and absolute then there is no moral error on their part. Do you agree?

Based on my understanding of moraliry,the actions of the character described in the Bible are morally wrong.

Where did your understanding of morality originate?

You think they are morally correct but can't justify this position except to say that there simply just has to be some way of making them good... Even if you can't think of what this could be. Which of us is correct? Who decides?I guess we will just have to keep discussing the evidence we have and try our best to use reason to make those determinations.

It doesn't rest in evidence but in authority. You deny God's authority and His nature to claim that it is immoral. I accept God's authority and His nature to claim He had a moral reason.

Athee, we really need to find a way to condense this post. It is taking too much time to keep this going at this length.

Oncedeceived · May 17, 2016

I neglected to add a link in using someone's ideas in the new post so I need to go and find that and post the link. Sorry. I'll be posting that as soon as I find it.

Oncedeceived · May 17, 2016

Here is the link I forgot to put into the post about Evil God. https://vexingquestions.wordpress.com/tag/stephen-law/

Davian · May 17, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Actually, it isn't left to speculation. Astrophysicists have incredible computers that can change and tweak the measurements to determine that the universe really is fine tuned for life as we know it and for the universe to exist at all. No longer do we have to wonder what changes could be orchestrated with the constants and not only those but the forces that are as important for life and our universe and find that it stretches credulity for this universe just to be the way it is due to a lucky coincidence.

Until we can determine that the constants could have been different, it remains speculation.

In fact, not only would the constants need to be different but different laws of physics would be necessary.

The laws of physics are descriptive. They would be different, assuming that there emerges a sentient species to document them in that hypothetical alternate universe.

That is what makes the appearance of design have the appearance of being designed.

The perception of design is in your head. Now, if you have testable criteria for determining design, you would be able to show design, not simply assert you you believe to see.

We could compare things that someone believes would be a product of random non-designed elements. However, the order of the universe is probably a better way to determine what design IS rather than figuring out what it isn't. We could say that the pattern of pine needles on a forest floor is due to gravity, wind and even the possibility of animal activity. The events that transpire in the universe do so due to the order that is the underbelly of all existence. Order did not evolve. The order of the universe runs through the entire existence.

Still no testable criteria.

It is not blind faith that I derive my position but all the facets of reality that confirm my position.

When your position is unfalsifiable, virtually anything can lend support to it.

Our morality is not perfect as is God's. God has all the moral answers and acts upon that morality in the most moral way knowing all ways. We don't. So we have this ingrained morality that applies to us. We are not to kill because we don't have omniscience. So our moral compass is set on human morality, while God is sovereign and pure Good and His morality is the foundation of ours. We do not have the right to take life unjustified and we don't have all the information available to Him. So our moral standard is based on our position as the created. There is no conflict in reality. God will only act in His moral goodness, with the benefit of all mankind his goal.

I don't know how you mean by "all mankind", if the majority of them are to [hypothetically] burn for eternity for reasons beyond their control.

Athée · May 20, 2016

So this is super frustrating. For some reason I can't insert quotes today so I will have to respond as best I can without them. I will try to wrap some things up so that we can move on to some of the other things on our list
On the fine tuned universe I feel you missed the point, a computer simulation necessarily includes a bunch of assumptions that we can't verify without another universe to examine and so it remains speculation.
On design you seem to be saying that your definition of design does not include intent. If you have a criteria for what design is then we can examine it but if you are just going to claim that everything is designed then it is a vacuous term and can't be used to support anything.
Evil god: I read that article and the author makes the same mistake that most people do. He asserts things about the nature of good and evil and about the gods that are not proven. But even if you allow him his unfounded premises it still all falls apart.He says that we can't explain gradations of good but of course we can in the exact same way that gradations of evil can be explained on the good god hypothesis. Likewise this idea that the evil god has a mixed nature and this somehow is logically inconsistent is plain false. First your good god has the same problem of having created and allowing evil (for a purpose sure bUT still did it) second having a nature that intends evil but contains some elements of what might be called good is not a logical inconsistent position.
Then as if realizing that the argument has not been a good one he punts to Pascal and his horribly flawed wager. If you actually want to argue that pascal has a point we can follow that up later. For now just ask you self what force pascals wager has in light of the thousands of God and hell concepts that have been advanced over the course of human history. Do you choose based in the best heaven to go to or on the worst hell to avoid?

On slavery, Egyptian and otherwise
Yes Egyptians kept slaves, probably Hebrew ones you seem to be saying that this justifies the killing of the firstborn . So to be clear had I been alive at that time and kept a Hebrew slave (and was cruel to them) you as God would be justified in killing my three year old son as a punishment for what I did. Correct ?
On other slavery questions. The bible does not condone kidnapping and I never said it did, I said that slave owners in the south used the bible to support their owning of slaves, if you disagree you need to read up on the history a bit.
Finally and most importantly I wonder if you are deliberately misreading the bible. When I cited the passage where God says to buy slaves from the nations around you, the part that says don't buy or take Hebrew slaves because you can't treat Hebrews ruthlessly and as such you are only allowed to buy foreigners as slaves, your response was (who is doing the selling). Can you see that this in no way responds to the issue? On what basis do you argue that God does not condone slavery in light of the passage where God flat out says to buy slaves ?
I find this same lack of critical reading in your response to the question of judges. It says god was with them and they went down and failed to drive them out, in a section that was all about using military means to drive people out of the land the Israelites were supposed to get. And you claim to see no evidence of warlike conflict. you seem to be saying that trying to drive a people group out and failing is somehow conflatable with being too scared to engage, I am not sure what to say. Maybe ask yourself if you are really reading what the passage says or if you are trying to force it to fit your theology .

You asked me a bunch about morality and the basic thrust was if there is no absolute standard how can anything be judged moral or immoral. Basically when humans disagree about morality we need to discuss it and come to a conclusion. We may need to revise those determinations as we learn more about our world but that is the basic idea. I would point out that theism has the same problem. You claim god is the fondstion for all these morals but then admit that his morals are different from yours, that humans simply can't understand him. Basically on your worldview moral is whatever god says it is but he has not bothered to communicate it to his creature (well he did in the law but even though Jesus tells you to follow that you don't and of course the law doesn't cover all the modern questions of morality, also I notice that although you said my wait was over you only cited new testament passages about the law instead of the old testament as the question asked).
To drive the point home I am going to go back and type your definition of lying word for word...

"Nuances of sin can be quite enticing. Yet we objectively have a standard in which we rely on to tell us that yes it is lying if you intentionally deceive someone without using words. Yes, we objectively lie if we ask others to lie for us. And yes, it is possible to lie by omission. All objectively immoral based on a moral standard ingrained within us. Can people lie by omission and call itmoral? Yes, is it. No. "

So based on your definition of lying, one that god has put on your heart , god is a liar.
He sends spirits to lie on his behalf in numerous places in the bible and as we discussed earlier in thessalonians deceives people himself .

We also seem to disagree about predestination . You still seem to claim that God can predestin things and still allow free will but haven't supported that in any way except to say that the bible teaches predestination and also the bible teaches free will. The idea seems to be that because the bible can't contradict itself that this proves that the two are not logically inconsistent. You can see I hope that this is not a valid argument. If you can show that free will and predestination are a paradox (Thanks for pointing out my misuse of that ) and not a contradiction please do so.

Finally I wanted to make a quick response to this article you linked about eve. First his argument does not engage with the one we have been having really in any way. The author assumes eve has moral knowledge and culpability . The article does make a great point about the serpent not being Satan though, I have argued that exact thing in other threads. Best of all though it makes testable claims! It says that snakes are experts at taking advantage of rhetorical opportunities in a way that will trip up humans. Since you seem to believe that the Genesis story is a literal one I would love to hear if you agree with this assessment and how it compares to your experience of snakes in life generally.

A couple extra questions . ..
you seem to now be arguing that God has predestined everyone for heaven, did you mean to do that? Remember that Jesus collects all those that the father gives him and looses not a single one but they all get sanctified. So if this is your position you are saying that literally every human soul ever created gets to go to heaven.

You said that you don't have the relevant expertise to adress the flood. What is your educational background (I am an education undergrad and special education masters in deaf and hard of hearing , a certified asl interpreter. So I am not an expert in anything outside of those areas but I find I am still able to research and talk reasonably on many subjects outside those areas), what areas would you say you are sufficiently qualified to comment on without relying on experts?

I know I missed a bunch of stuff, I will try to get to some of it when the site lets me cite again. Also I have not yet read the article about Jewish genetics

I like our conversation too, it is always interesting to me to find out about what others believe and you have been very courteous .

Athée · May 20, 2016

Ok did a quick search on the book about the genetics of jews.... here is quote pulled from the reviews but may in fact be part of the book (I am not sure though since I don't have the book)
Ostrer launched the Jewish HapMap Project in NY City, the second largest Jewish city in the world. This project demonstrated that Jewish populations from the major Diaspora groups – Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi – form a distinctive population cluster that is closely related to Semitic and European populations. Within this larger Jewish cluster, each of the populations formed its own subcluster. Each group demonstrated Semitic ancestry and had variable degrees of admixture with Europeans. The genetic split between the Ashkenazi and Middle Eastern groups occurred about 2,500 years ago. “Overall the typical degree of sharing (among Jewish communities) was what might be expected for fourth and fifth cousins; this, indeed is the degree of relatedness within Jewish communities.”

So this makes the exact point I was making, that the jews have mixed with the people in the places where they ended up and that their genetic signatures have been diluted. We could say the same about Neanderthals so I am not sure how this proves your point.

Oncedeceived · May 20, 2016

You're the one claiming that the ancient Hebrews possessed knowledge of origins consistent with modern science. So if the divinely-guided author meant to say "Then God created the first sea creatures..." or something like that, why not write something to that effect? Instead the author talks about "every living thing with which the water teems". All inclusive. Present tense. Not referring to the way things were in the past, not referring to a subset of aquatic animals. Please address this issue.

I have.

You've also ignored the following point, so I'd appreciate a response this time. Here it is again:
Genesis 1 refers to the great creatures of the sea. The biggest Cambrian animals (certain species of anomalocaridid, if you're interested) were only about a meter long. Some estimates made from very fragmentary material give a maximum size of two meters. Even if there were two meter long anomalocaridids, this hardly seems like a "great creature of the sea". There are plenty of humans who are bigger than that. It sounds much more like it is meant to refer to whales and sharks and whatnot. Bad news for your interpretation that Genesis is talking about Cambrian fauna. Thoughts?

I have responded to this repeatedly, my only choice is to conclude that you are not reading my posts.

Ugh. This is the third or fourth time you've copied and pasted that into your response. Re-asserting your interpretation is completely unproductive; you need to support your interpretation. My arguments rely on the words actually written in Genesis, yours rely on what you want Genesis to say.

I argue by the way I view the Scripture, it fits with the evidence and I believe that is the way it was meant to be read.

I believe Genesis 1 is recording a sequence. But that's not the claim you made. You said that Genesis records a chronological sequence from the "beginning to the present time". I challenged you to support that claim. Can you? Because based on the actual words written it seems like Genesis is recording a chronological sequence from the beginning to six days (with mornings and evenings) later.

So we interpret it differently.

Oncedeceived · May 20, 2016

Ok AC, half my post is gone and I don't know what happened. This is a pain.

Atheos canadensis · May 20, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Ok AC, half my post is gone and I don't know what happened. This is a pain.

Take your time and I'll respond to the full reply.

Oncedeceived · May 20, 2016

Atheos canadensis said:
Take your time and I'll respond to the full reply.

Thanks. I don't understand what happened. I didn't hit delete or anything so I'm at a loss.

Davian · May 20, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Thanks. I don't understand what happened. I didn't hit delete or anything so I'm at a loss.

Act of God.

Oncedeceived · May 23, 2016

Atheos canadensis said:
So have I chosen to be deceived by Satan?

Yes, by not being with God you are against Him and are subject to Satan.

You still don't seem to grasp the point I'm making here. Let's go through it again by having you answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that Luke 21 is talking about the Second coming?

2. Do you acknowledge that in Luke 21:32 Jesus predicts that "This generation shall not pass away" before he Returns?

1. Yes. 2. Yes, the generation that "sees" all these signs which is our generation.

Based on the article you linked, my interpretation seems to be the more accurate one. Your article stated that major shifts in idea or topics were usually marked by page breaks, although sometimes they weren't. Your article does not say that the reverse ever happened, i.e. that related points were generally together but were sometimes divided by page breaks. This suggests that the division we see in Matthew means that the Transfiguration is a distinct topic from the prediction Jesus makes in the previous chapter.

You seem to be making the argument that this must be about the Transfiguration is that Jesus would have been wrong otherwise. That's not a real argument.

Three of the disciples wrote about this and only one had a break in the passage. That tells me that it belongs together.

Okay. You have no examples of Jesus talking about something a imminent as if it were a long way off. This supports my interpretation that when Jesus talked about some of his audience being alive to see the events he described, implying that it would be many years in the future, he wasn't talking about an event that would transpire in 6 days.

That makes no sense. Why would it matter if He never talked about another imminent event in a short time span? Why would He?

Insufficient. You didn't make any substantive argument above for why it makes more sense to think that Jesus was referring to a generation 2000 years in the future instead of the people he was talking to. Your only argument is that your interpretation must be correct because otherwise Jesus was wrong. That Jesus was wrong is exactly the argument I'm making. It is begging the question for you to claim that Jesus couldn't have been wrong so your interpretation must be correct. So please provide an actual argument for why it makes more sense to interpret "this generation" as a generation 2000 years in the future rather than the people being addressed. Something more than "My interpretation is right because otherwise Jesus was wrong".

I didin't say that Jesus couldn't be wrong. He said that He didn't know the time He would return, so being wrong would be due to His lack of the timing of this event. It makes more sense because of the necessary elements to His coming. You have to understand Daniel's prophecy and how it all comes together other than just this passage.

Athée has provided a number of biblical excerpts that tell us God predestines our actions. Most recently he posted one (Romans 8:29) wherein the author makes a distinction between simple foreknowledge and predestination. And of course we have it straight from the horse's mouth that most people are not going to make it to Heaven. Thus the majority of human souls are predestined for damnation.

Romans 8:29-30 "For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"

Did God foreknow you? IF God foreknew you and we know He did if He knows everything then He predestined you and every person ever born to be conformed to the image of His Son. Free will comes in by choice. It is your choice to go in the path that God destined you for or for you to take your own. We have passages that claim that God predestined certain people for certain purposes as well. However, that will not overrule man's own choice.

Cool, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making. The point is that at certain times God is willing to enforce his will at the cost of our free will as he did with Pharaoh. You seem to have agreed with that point by conceding that God does "intervene in the will of a person", but let's go through it again to make sure.

1.You agree that in that moment Pharaoh could not have opposed God's will that his heart be hardened. Correct?

2. If God had to intervene to harden Pharaoh's heart then in that exact moment (regardless of past or future actions) it was Pharaoh's will that his heart be softened. If you disagree, please explain why in detail.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
I believe that God took away Pharaoh's will at the moment for His own purposes. It however, did not alter his destiny of his eternal choice. God did not punish Pharaoh for the moment that God hardened his heart, he was punished for his own free will choices.

Very good. So you agree that having us co-exist with God is more important to him than having us choose to coexist with him.

I really don't know. I think that when evil rises to the extent that there is no hope for man to choose to repent and their are children who are trapped in this evil that God feels mercy for them is better than free will.

Fair mindedness is irrelevant to the point. The point is about whether God violates free will. So. You agree that free will in this context is about the opportunity to choose to accept or reject God. It doesn't matter that the children can't make the decision yet, it matters that they are being prevented from making that decision. If free will is about the chance to make that decision and the chance to make that decision is removed, they don't have free will. Or, put more abstractly which may make it clearer:

X requires Y. You remove Y. Can you still have X?

See above.

You've only asserted the same thing again. Scripture says God is good, so whatever he does must be good even if you can't actually make his actions comport with goodness.

Scripture says He is good, my experience says He is good. There are even within our limited human experience where something may appear to be immoral but be good and moral just the same. I believe I am justified in believing that if God is good as I have experienced and others in the Bible even have experienced and HE is truly Just and omniscient then it must be good. If I can think that there is a good and moral reason with only my limited human ability then I am justified to believe that there is a good and moral reason. That moral reason for instance, the survival of all mankind in the future. If all mankind would be eliminated if this action was not taken then the good far outweighs the bad actions that were necessary to insure mankind's future.

Fair enough, I suppose. But when God killed everyone, didn't their evil souls still exist? The evil is still around, so it seems that killing everyone doesn't eliminate the existence of their evil. Or does that not count because the evil ones are being tormented for eternity?

Yes. Hell is the separation from Good. There is no good in hell.

Anyway, this doesn't address the option of God producing in everyone that momentary flash of true understanding of his love and glory etc. Maybe some would still turn away, but it seems likely that after once experiencing that love and glory many or even most would thereafter choose God. We know that such experiences tend to have profound and often lifelong effects on people.

I believe that everyone is called but we are free to accept or reject.

I also used the example of non-contradiction and pointed out that as far as anyone has ever observed, something cannot be simultaneously A and Not A. There are effectively unlimited things to observe even just on our planet and billions of people throughout history have never even once observed one of those things to be both itself and not itself. That's good enough evidence for me that this is true.

So without observing A and not A this law would not exist? How if we were not here to observe A and Not A would it cease to be valid?

Yes, I think people believe that their beliefs comport with reality. With science we can establish whether our beliefs actually do comport with reality or whether they comport better with reality than another belief. Not so for most religious beliefs. Protestants and Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc are equally convinced by both faith and reason that their beliefs comport with reality and they will continue to do so because faith is not actually a good way of knowing if you're approaching truth.

Faith is the only way in science to establish whether or not our beliefs do comport with reality or whether they comport better with reality than another belief. Science is based on the fact that we have faith that the universe is orderly and can be comprehended in a correct way, that tomorrow will be the same as today and yesterday. Science can only make sense if our minds are reliable and can comprehend the universe. The Bible only makes those claims and reality confirms it. Theism is a better explanation for why the universe is orderly and can be comprehended by human beings made in the image of God Himself.

Why do I think what? That none of them are correct? Because I'm an atheist.

So you agree that you being an atheist makes them incorrect? If not, what makes you think they are incorrect?

And yet there are hundreds of different Christian denominations all equally convinced by reason-guided faith that their particular set of beliefs is correct. Clearly faith even bolstered by reason is not capable of actually making apparent which specific belief is the correct one.

All Christian denominations to be Christian believe that Jesus lived and died on the cross and rose again. All Christian denominations do believe that Jesus lived and died on the cross and rose again.

You're just asserting again that only God can be sinless. You haven't presented any scriptural support for this claim. You're also conflating sinlessness with being God, a clearly false premise as evinced in this very post where you state that our spirits (which are created beings) can become sinless. My argument relies on the scripturally-supported notion that God can do anything that isn't a logical impossibility or doesn't violate his nature. Your assertion currently enjoys no such scriptural support. And since you brought it up, could you provide the scripture that tells us God can't create anyone like himself?

The whole Bible supports this claim. WE don't become sinless we become able to not sin. We after Christ paid for our sins here on earth are free from the debt of sin and no longer are bound by it or have a desire for it. Christ gives us by accepting His payment in full the ability to desire not to sin.

I agree that if God existed our opinion of his plan wouldn't affect it. But the point remains that God is willing to grant salvation without the individual actually choosing him.

In some cases yes.

That comparison falls flat for me. You're talking about, for example, letting your kid get detention for misbehaving in school or something like that (or even something more serious like a crime, I assume). With God we're talking about eternal damnation for something that he knew in advance most of his children would not be able to avoid doing. And if we are to believe the passages about predestination, he even set most of his children up to fail.

Even without predestination, God refuses to intervene even momentarily to save his children despite the evidence that he is willing to intervene when it suits him. If you knew your child was going to go out and kill someone in cold blood, landing them in jail for the rest of their life, would you say nothing because they should be allowed to choose their own path? Would you tell them once or twice that they shouldn't do it? Or would you do everything in your power to convince them to make the right choice?

You haven't shown that God doesn't call everyone.

Excellent. You must therefore concede that, according to the scientific evidence currently available, Genesis is wrong when it says angiosperms were created prior to animals.

One can't claim with 100% certainty that Genesis is wrong, but by your own admission I am justified in claiming that the current evidence supports the conclusion that Genesis is wrong.

I would agree with that. I believe that I am justified in my belief that the possibility of angiosperms exists noting that there is no actual evidence for them but there is evidence for plants. I also would note, we should even consider that the types of plants and seed bearing plants that we know to be angiosperms were most likely not the same as the ones we see today. So they would not even have to be what we see today that early and still be characterized in the same way we characterize angiosperms today.

Posts that are following are on the other post.

You're the one claiming that the ancient Hebrews possessed knowledge of origins consistent with modern science. So if the divinely-guided author meant to say "Then God created the first sea creatures..." or something like that, why not write something to that effect? Instead the author talks about "every living thing with which the water teems". All inclusive. Present tense. Not referring to the way things were in the past, not referring to a subset of aquatic animals. Please address this issue.

You've also ignored the following point, so I'd appreciate a response this time. Here it is again:
Genesis 1 refers to the great creatures of the sea. The biggest Cambrian animals (certain species of anomalocaridid, if you're interested) were only about a meter long. Some estimates made from very fragmentary material give a maximum size of two meters. Even if there were two meter long anomalocaridids, this hardly seems like a "great creature of the sea". There are plenty of humans who are bigger than that. It sounds much more like it is meant to refer to whales and sharks and whatnot. Bad news for your interpretation that Genesis is talking about Cambrian fauna. Thoughts?

Ugh. This is the third or fourth time you've copied and pasted that into your response. Re-asserting your interpretation is completely unproductive; you need to support your interpretation. My arguments rely on the words actually written in Genesis, yours rely on what you want Genesis to say.

I believe Genesis 1 is recording a sequence. But that's not the claim you made. You said that Genesis records a chronological sequence from the "beginning to the present time". I challenged you to support that claim. Can you? Because based on the actual words written it seems like Genesis is recording a chronological sequence from the beginning to six days (with mornings and evenings) later.

You're welcome. It is a useful tool for tracking down old threads and relevant posts.

Archaeopteryx · May 23, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Faith is the only way in science to establish whether or not our beliefs do comport with reality or whether they comport better with reality than another belief. Science is based on the fact that we have faith that the universe is orderly and can be comprehended in a correct way, that tomorrow will be the same as today and yesterday. Science can only make sense if our minds are reliable and can comprehend the universe. The Bible only makes those claims and reality confirms it. Theism is a better explanation for why the universe is orderly and can be comprehended by human beings made in the image of God Himself.

Science does not rely on faith, but religion does. You seem to be equivocating on the word "faith," hoping to present science and religion as standing on equal ground epistemically.

Oncedeceived · May 23, 2016

Archaeopteryx said:
Science does not rely on faith, but religion does. You seem to be equivocating on the word "faith," hoping to present science and religion as standing on equal ground .

Both rely on faith and evidence. As I said in the post you quoted.

Archaeopteryx · May 23, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Both rely on faith and evidence. As I said in the post you quoted.

Except that they don't. If you had evidence, why would you need faith?

bhsmte · May 23, 2016

Archaeopteryx said:
Except that they don't. If you had evidence, why would you need faith?

That goes without saying.

I always get a kick, out of christians who just cant say; i believe what i do on faith and they have to pretend they have evidence that is verifiable.

Then, they need to claim people who follow science and the verifiable evidence, are using faith.

Serious projection involved here and robust defense mechanisms.

Oncedeceived · May 23, 2016

Archaeopteryx said:
Except that they don't. If you had evidence, why would you need faith?

That is simply false. Faith is about trusting God not about the reality of God.

What if you seek and don't find?

The Librarian

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

fallible

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

fallible

Senior Veteran

Wanderer

Senior Veteran

Wanderer

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency