What if you seek and don't find?

[AV1611VET]

You saw that movie also? Great movie!

Actually it's from a Wild Wild West episode.

The Night of the Winged Terror: Part II

 

[Athée]

Hey all,

I have a very busy week or two ahead. I will try to keep up the posts but it will definitely be at a slower pace.
Peace

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey all,

I have a very busy week or two ahead. I will try to keep up the posts but it will definitely be at a slower pace.
Peace

Okay, Athée.

We'll leave the light on for ya!

Want me to answer your posts for ya?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

AV1611VET said: ↑
Sounds like someone's under the influence of the Lazlo Spectrum.

You saw that movie also? Great movie!


...................................

.......................................

.

Actually it's from a Wild Wild West episode.

The Night of the Winged Terror: Part II

I loved that series!!!
So what is a "lazlo spectrum"?
I couldn't find much on it........

https://soundcloud.com/https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Fodessa5-free-fr%2Flazlo-spectrum http://www.homeclick.com/products/spectrum-lazlo.aspx?n=109+55070757+55074054\
http://www.965thebuzz.com/The-Church-of-Lazlo/11294215?date=2015_09


.[/quote]

 

[AV1611VET]

I loved that series!!!

Me too!

So what is a "lazlo spectrum"?
I couldn't find much on it........

I can't remember either.

It was a whole spectrum of mind control drugs that left its "victim" under the influence of the administer.

I'll see if I can look it up and be more detailed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll see if I can look it up and be more detailed.

Steve, start at about 34:15 and go forward:

 

[Oncedeceived]

I thought that post might have been somewhat confusing, sorry.

No problem.

You seem to be saying that either God actually will eventually give me the major hint I need or he isn't bothering to give me a sign because I would refuse him no matter what. I think we can agree that the former option is of course completely unverifiable, but theoretically possible. But let's pretend that I'm minutes from death and I've still not gotten the obvious sing I need. In this case your only other option is that I actually would not have been convinced by the personal introduction-blindness-miracle thing. Speaking on my own behalf, I would say this is dead wrong, but again I suppose it's theoretically possible.

But even if I am wrong in thinking such an experience would convince me, I don't see how this fits with your claim that free will is important to God. If it is so important to him that I either choose him or deny him of my own free will, why would he never give me the sign I think I need so I can make my free will choice? Just because he knows I will still turn away? Isn't it violating my free will to deny me the chance to actually make the decision? If not, please explain.

If you were to ask my true opinion, I think that you come here and I probably other forums to debate others about God because God is not letting you alone. I think He is putting a zeal into your mind about all this. I could be wrong. To me you don't seem like a person who gets satisfaction out of "showing up faith" but you tend to really like to understand the other side. Again, I could be wrong but maybe God is behind you and even some others on this board being here.

Now, I do believe that God will give you every chance to be saved. He will give you a small sign, then maybe another and then if you accept, He will take that permission and your incredible sign will be given. That is what I see happen with unbelievers and baby Christians.

I assume from the argument that it is a figure of speech that you are not aware of any translations that suggest "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" means the same thing as "Pharaoh hardened his heart". Is that correct?

I'm aware that figures of speech are used, but I don't think you've made a strong case for God hardening Pharaoh's heart being a figure of speech. It still seems to me that the fact that the author several times said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart indicates that something different was meant, i.e. that it was God, not Pharaoh, doing the heart hardening in this instance. What do you think about this distinction?

I have a challenge. Find anyone in the Bible that God hardened that did not harden themselves first.

I agree that it is possible that he was lying in this instance, but again I come back to wondering why the biblical author would repeatedly make the distinction if he really meant the same thing each time.

See above.

I'm not making any statements about what is more moral. I am asking you two questions:

1. Is it good an moral in this instance to kill babies? Your answer seems to be yes, but I would appreciate an explicit answer.

2. Does it violate free will to kill those babies before they get the chance to exert their free will and choose evil?

This seems a little uneven. On one hand you think that killing babies in this instance takes away the ability later on life to do evil; so they get to go to heaven free and clear but they don't have a chance to make a choice. Would it be more moral of God to send them to hell just because He knew they would do evil horrendous things? Would it have been more moral to have the babies live while the adults died, watching their parents die and then having a slow death from starvation?

I'm asking this question so I can understand how your morality works. I know you don't believe Jesus would ever ask such a thing but that is not the point. I would appreciate a direct answer. I'm not trying to trick you into saying Jesus is immoral or something. I just want to know what you would do. So again, knowing in your heart without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus (not an impostor) had really commanded you to kill babies, would you do it? Would that be a moral act?

I've answered you several times. I would not do it. Period. The Israelites had reason to do this, this group of people had been merciless to them, killing the young and old alike in horrendous ways. Do you think there is such a thing as serving Justice to evil people for doing evil things to the ones you love?

Also I think you missed this question: Do you do not consider God and Jesus to be different versions of the same being? Do you not subscribe to the Trinity?

Yes.

1. I am aware that this occurs. However I am not aware of any such occurrences on the scale required for the order of creation in the bible to be salvaged. In any case I don't think the suggestion that the angiosperm fossil record might someday be moved back before the advent of life in the sea is really a convincing argument to defend the order of creation in Genesis. Saying that the fossil record might produce new data that aligns with Genesis does not constitute support for the Gensis account actually being accurate to the best of our knowledge.

We know that oxygen levels support such a possibility. Why do you think that is so out of the realm of possibility? What stands out besides this that you feel is so unconvincing?

2. Not off the top of my head. But the non-existence of similar creation myths wouldn't serve as any support whatsoever for the accuracy of the biblical account. If you disagree please explain why.

This goes to the point of reasoning between religions.

3. I included some of it in the post you responded to. The order of creation in Genesis simply doesn't match the order in which organisms appear in the fossil record. You've made the argument that Genesis is just giving an overview of what was created and is not meant to give the order in which things were created. If that is the case, why is creation broken up into distinct days? Why do this if not to give a chronological order to the events described? If the genesis account doesn't give any information about the order of events, how can you justify the claim that the passage you've cited about the creation of aquatic life demonstrates that the bible says life arose in the sea? If there's no chronology in the account, it might as well be saying (which it does seem to, by the way), that fruit trees arose before life in the seas.

It does, I don't know what you mean.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No problem.

If you were to ask my true opinion, I think that you come here and I probably other forums to debate others about God because God is not letting you alone. I think He is putting a zeal into your mind about all this. I could be wrong. To me you don't seem like a person who gets satisfaction out of "showing up faith" but you tend to really like to understand the other side. Again, I could be wrong but maybe God is behind you and even some others on this board being here.

I tend not to argue against God. I mostly content myself with pointing out when biblical literalism fails to align with science (e.g. Global Flood produced fossil record). It's more about that than a fascination with God. For me God is like aliens, ghosts and sasquatch; I think it would be cool if they were real but I have never been presented with any convincing evidence.

Now, I do believe that God will give you every chance to be saved. He will give you a small sign, then maybe another and then if you accept, He will take that permission and your incredible sign will be given. That is what I see happen with unbelievers and baby Christians.

A small sign or several small signs aren't going to cut it though. I know this so surely God knows this. He knows it will take something big to bring me to him, so why muck about with subtleties?

I have a challenge. Find anyone in the Bible that God hardened that did not harden themselves first.

I will do this, but I would still appreciate an actual argument supporting the claim that God hardening Pharaoh's heart actually means Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

A quick google furnishes me with this example:

Deut 2:30 - "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today."

As I've mentioned, I'm no biblical scholar. But I don't see anything else in Deuteronomy 2 that talks about Sihon hardening his own heart.

Also this:

Exodus 4:21 - "The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

Seems like God was already planning to harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses performed any wonders or warned of any plagues. This seems to undermine the claim that Pharaoh was responsible for all the heart hardening.

In any case, I would still like you to justify rather than simply reiterate your claim that "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" (or anyone else's) really means "Pharaoh hardened his heart". Why make the distinction if they mean the same thing?

This seems a little uneven. On one hand you think that killing babies in this instance takes away the ability later on life to do evil; so they get to go to heaven free and clear but they don't have a chance to make a choice. Would it be more moral of God to send them to hell just because He knew they would do evil horrendous things? Would it have been more moral to have the babies live while the adults died, watching their parents die and then having a slow death from starvation?

I'm happy to answer your questions, but I'd appreciate it if you would do me the same courtesy instead of merely asking questions in response. As I said before, I'm not commenting on what is the most moral course of action, I'm trying to figure out how free will fits into this situation.

Anyway, I would say it is more moral to send them straight to heaven than to hell. Not so sure about the second question. I would say killing them right off is better than letting them starve, but why couldn't God have just ordered the Israelites to care for the babies and raise them in the ways of the Lord? Do really believe babies can be born evil? Was death the only way?

And now please answer the questions I asked you:

1. Is it good an moral in this instance to kill babies? Your answer seems to be yes, but I would appreciate an explicit answer.

2. Does it violate free will to kill those babies before they get the chance to exert their free will and choose evil?

I've answered you several times. I would not do it. Period. The Israelites had reason to do this, this group of people had been merciless to them, killing the young and old alike in horrendous ways. Do you think there is such a thing as serving Justice to evil people for doing evil things to the ones you love?

Well you actually said you wouldn't do it if God told you to. But you are saying now that you wouldn't do it even if J the C, S of G himself ordered you to. Why not? Would you consider such a command immoral? Or would you just not be able to bring yourself to do it even though you knew it was the moral thing to do?

I do think justice should be served, but I'm not convinced that killing babies serves justice. They have done nothing but be born and I don't think a baby can be born evil.

Yes.

Sorry, the brevity of this answer combined with the way I phrased the question makes your response ambiguous. Let me try again. Do you believe God and Jesus are the same person? Do you believe in the Trinity?

We know that oxygen levels support such a possibility. Why do you think that is so out of the realm of possibility? What stands out besides this that you feel is so unconvincing?

Please explain how discoveries about oxygen levels supports the possibility that angiosperms were actually among the first organisms as is implied by the creation order in Genesis. Again, suggesting that future discoveries might push certain lineages back in time does not constitute any actual support for the accuracy of the Genesis creation account. If you disagree, please explain.

I don't discount the possibility that future discoveries might push back various lineages, but the scale of temporal shift required in addition to the number of lineages for which this would have to occur make it a remote possibility indeed.

This goes to the point of reasoning between religions.

You'll have to expand on this for me. I don't see how this addresses the question. How would the non-existence of similar creation myths lends veracity to the Genesis account?

It does, I don't know what you mean.

I'm not sure what part of that excerpt your addressing, so I'll restate my questions so it is less confusing for us both.

1. Is Genesis giving a chronological account of the order in which various groups were created?
2. If no, why did the author break it up into distinct days with a morning and evening? And how can you claim that it describes life as starting in the sea when that passage is floating around in the middle of Genesis 1?
3. If yes, how do you justify saying that the bible accurately describes that the first life arose in the sea when fruit trees are created first?

It seems to me that either Genesis is a chronological description of the order in which things were created in which case it certainly fails to align with the fossil record, or it isn't a chronological description of the order in which things were created and thus it is impossible to claim that it accurately describes that the first life arose in the sea.

 

[Athée]

Time for a random response to something posted days ago!

What evidence in the universe did you discover that you felt falsified Christianity?

I seem to recall first falsifying the literalism that was part of the Christian communities I was a part of. Things like Noah's ark vs the geological record and physics were the beginning of understanding the Bible differently, not as a set of historical events but as stories told by an ancient people group. Another problem that came up was the seeming contradiction between gratuitous suffering and a good and loving God. In truth though I wouldn't say that the universe presents much evidence that could outright falsify the Christian God concept entirely. There are Things that seem more probable on naturalism than theism but even then, there is always a hypothetical possibility that God just set it up that way.
I'm curious though, what evidence from the observable universe would convince you that you might be mistaken in your God belief?

What did you attribute this things to after you left Christianity?

Oh wow, so long ago Generally I would say that all of my experiences could be explained by wishful thinking, wilful self deception and community reinforcement.
Do you have any experiences of God that you would say it is impossible to have a naturalistic account of?

There are various reasons for them not to conclude that the appearance of design is actual design. Many think that even if it is design, it adds nothing to science and so it is not included in their work. Many believe that it supports design but it can't be scientifically tested so again in science it is not included. Then there are some that base this opinion on their own personal biases.

Yup lots of different views, that said again the majority of scientists in relevant fields today don't believe in gods so...

Do you have all the information you would need to determine that any other world that allows free will or free choice would or could be different?

Of course not but I don't find this a compelling response. The only world we know anything about is this one, and in this one God kills people and allows an astounding amount of suffering. Sure we can say, there could be a possible world where... But to me this seems weak. It would be like saying that it was OK for someone to kill a child because maybe of they hadn't that child would have grown up to do something bad. Sure it is possible but it does that excuse the act. I suspect you will want to respond that God is in a position to know all possible worlds and thier outcomes so that makes it different. But again we are back at free will. If there is no possibility that these people will choose not to sin then there is no free will. They are just acting according to thier nature's. As an aside, if every human is born with a sin nature and can't choose otherwise how can you say that Jesus who was 100% human never sinned? If sin is an inherent part of human nature, then either it was part of Jesus or he wasnt human in the relevant sense.

Also, I don't think that you were asking me to convince you about God's motivations or morality but how I being a Christian can view it. I think I have reasonable and cohesive answers for how I view the situation.

I actually don't feel you have cohesive answers. What you have presented are tenuous possibilities,maube this is the best of all possible world's, maybe God has morally sufficient reasons for killing babies etc. These are not answers, they are statements of hope. You hope that the genocidal, infant killing deity that you worship has a good reason, but you do the know that. What's worse is that in your world view moraloty is entirely subjective, it depends only on God's whim and so if God says killing children is good, then you have to agree... Right?
Even worse you have expressed several times that we don't know the full nature of God, that we can't fully understand. This is despite his revelation, so it could well be the case that there is a characteristic of God that require him to string humanity along in the most possible suffering, when convincing believers that it is for the best. How could we know if this were the case or not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I tend not to argue against God. I mostly content myself with pointing out when biblical literalism fails to align with science (e.g. Global Flood produced fossil record). It's more about that than a fascination with God. For me God is like aliens, ghosts and sasquatch; I think it would be cool if they were real but I have never been presented with any convincing evidence.

What would the fossil record reflect if a global flood occurred? I'm curious because this is not my area and I've not the expertise to counter any argument and so I won't probably go far with this line in our discussions but I am interested in what you feel fails in accordance with a global flood.

Do you also go to such lengths in regard to aliens, ghosts, and Sasquatch? Are you a member of any forums that discuss them?

A small sign or several small signs aren't going to cut it though. I know this so surely God knows this. He knows it will take something big to bring me to him, so why muck about with subtleties?

So little things such as Israel becoming a nation once again after thousands of years is unconvincing? The little thing of the Bible saying thousands of years prior to that event that the Jews would be a distinct people being exiled all over the world would again come back to Israel in the later days and there would be areas that would withhold that exodus, one to the north and the other from the south. We know that Russia and Ethiopia would not allow them to leave. Finally they allowed it completing the prophecy. Israel was desolate when they started the return, but the Bible said that Israel would again be prosperous and the whole world would be concerned over it and we see that to be true; but this little sign is unconvincing to you even though it is right there before you? I don't see these as "little" signs but fairly right there in your face.

I will do this, but I would still appreciate an actual argument supporting the claim that God hardening Pharaoh's heart actually means Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

A quick google furnishes me with this example:

Deut 2:30 - "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today."

As I've mentioned, I'm no biblical scholar. But I don't see anything else in Deuteronomy 2 that talks about Sihon hardening his own heart.

Also this:

Exodus 4:21 - "The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

Seems like God was already planning to harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses performed any wonders or warned of any plagues. This seems to undermine the claim that Pharaoh was responsible for all the heart hardening.

It is very clear that God sees the end from the beginning according to the Bible. Any event is known before it happens, but that doesn't mean it is determined by God. I've used the example of my parents marrying and having two children. I know this but I didn't determine it to happen even though I know it happened. Had I the ability as God does to be outside of time, I could know this would happen "before" it actually did and still not affect the events. This is the same with Pharaoh or any human being. God knew that Pharaoh would act in a certain way without interfering with his free will at all.

In any case, I would still like you to justify rather than simply reiterate your claim that "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" (or anyone else's) really means "Pharaoh hardened his heart". Why make the distinction if they mean the same thing?

We can see in the cases that God has "hardened the heart" that the people involved had a certain character, a character of hardness, callousness and arrogance. They did wickedly to others. They had resisted God and continued in their wicked ways even after warnings and signs from God. They were willfully wicked and in Pharaohs case repentant only as long as the plague was active and then defied God again until the plague broke him again, and this happened over and over until finally God gave his final judgement against Pharaoh which allowing for Pharaoh's own character which hardened his own heart now God allowed that to be the judgement against him. He used the character of Pharaoh for His own means and to show that God would not be mocked and that Pharaoh's arrogance was his undoing. This goes along with scripture that states that God will give warnings and prophecies to enlighten the unbeliever but if the unbeliever continues in his own wicked way then God will bring judgement against them and in this case that judgement was to cement or harden the already hardened heart. God uses the same type of thing on believers as well. He provides suffering, mercy and the means to repent and some will do so with all their hearts and others will turn away.

I'm happy to answer your questions, but I'd appreciate it if you would do me the same courtesy instead of merely asking questions in response. As I said before, I'm not commenting on what is the most moral course of action, I'm trying to figure out how free will fits into this situation.

Ok.

Anyway, I would say it is more moral to send them straight to heaven than to hell. Not so sure about the second question. I would say killing them right off is better than letting them starve, but why couldn't God have just ordered the Israelites to care for the babies and raise them in the ways of the Lord? Do really believe babies can be born evil? Was death the only way?

If we take the Bible as truth which is what we are trying to determine in the long run, we see that these people were from a truly wicked group of people. We don't know that they didn't have some genetic disease that might have wiped out the Jews or if they would grow up being bitter against the Jews and do great evil within their communities either. We don't have all the information needed to determine what reason God had for not letting them live.

And now please answer the questions I asked you:

1. Is it good an moral in this instance to kill babies? Your answer seems to be yes, but I would appreciate an explicit answer.

I believe that God is righteous and would not decide to eliminate babies if not for a very good and righteous reason that I do not have access to.

2. Does it violate free will to kill those babies before they get the chance to exert their free will and choose evil?

God can have mercy on anyone He wishes and it would be more merciful to allow them to die while their will was still free and good rather than allow them to live and continue their free will to do evil.

Well you actually said you wouldn't do it if God told you to. But you are saying now that you wouldn't do it even if J the C, S of G himself ordered you to. Why not? Would you consider such a command immoral? Or would you just not be able to bring yourself to do it even though you knew it was the moral thing to do?

I can not bring myself to believe that Jesus would ever ask me to kill babies. I would feel that something was wrong with my interpretation, my understanding or my mind rather than think that Jesus told me to kill.

I do think justice should be served, but I'm not convinced that killing babies serves justice. They have done nothing but be born and I don't think a baby can be born evil.

I don't know if they can or not, I do know that they are not judged evil until they can make a choice. However, I know that you believe that our behavior is provided by our evolutionary makeup, how do people become evil in your estimation? A baby is born with the same mind that they die with, so how do you explain evil in an adult but not a baby in your worldview?

Sorry, the brevity of this answer combined with the way I phrased the question makes your response ambiguous. Let me try again. Do you believe God and Jesus are the same person? Do you believe in the Trinity?

I do.

Please explain how discoveries about oxygen levels supports the possibility that angiosperms were actually among the first organisms as is implied by the creation order in Genesis. Again, suggesting that future discoveries might push certain lineages back in time does not constitute any actual support for the accuracy of the Genesis creation account. If you disagree, please explain.

My reasoning is that we can't really know if the sequences in the Bible Narrative are "out of line" because that line can move by millions and millions of years. We don't even have the earliest earth to make such determinations and there is plenty of time to have this sort of life existing and to have been destroyed prior to what we have actual evidence for. I find it rather amusing that people claim that the sequence is wrong when having a sequence at all that fits at all with evidence is pretty amazing in itself considering that it was written long before any such sequence of how life arose was known.

I don't discount the possibility that future discoveries might push back various lineages, but the scale of temporal shift required in addition to the number of lineages for which this would have to occur make it a remote possibility indeed.

I assume you read my post about these sequences, other than the trees coming first there is no discrepancies in the account to fossil evidence.

You'll have to expand on this for me. I don't see how this addresses the question. How would the non-existence of similar creation myths lends veracity to the Genesis account?

I am not going back to look, but I believe this is in regard to how we know which religion and its creation narrative can be determined from one to the other? It goes towards reason being a factor in determining truth or at least what makes more sense in regard to what we find in the universe and what is found in the Bible.

I'm not sure what part of that excerpt your addressing, so I'll restate my questions so it is less confusing for us both.

Ok.

1. Is Genesis giving a chronological account of the order in which various groups were created?

Yes, time periods that are sequenced by what came about during that time.

2. If no, why did the author break it up into distinct days with a morning and evening? And how can you claim that it describes life as starting in the sea when that passage is floating around in the middle of Genesis 1?
3. If yes, how do you justify saying that the bible accurately describes that the first life arose in the sea when fruit trees are created first?

Don't we view plant life and animal life as two separate kingdoms of life? I don't know what you mean by floating around in the middle of Genesis.

It seems to me that either Genesis is a chronological description of the order in which things were created in which case it certainly fails to align with the fossil record, or it isn't a chronological description of the order in which things were created and thus it is impossible to claim that it accurately describes that the first life arose in the sea.

As I've shown it is very much fitting with the fossil record that we have presently other than the evidence for the trees, but we don't have earth's earliest mantle or any evidence of it, for or against trees being present.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Time for a random response to something posted days ago!


I seem to recall first falsifying the literalism that was part of the Christian communities I was a part of. Things like Noah's ark vs the geological record and physics were the beginning of understanding the Bible differently, not as a set of historical events but as stories told by an ancient people group.

I asked AC so I'll ask you took, what evidence would be reflected in the geological record if a flood occurred? Just curious.

Another problem that came up was the seeming contradiction between gratuitous suffering and a good and loving God. In truth though I wouldn't say that the universe presents much evidence that could outright falsify the Christian God concept entirely. There are Things that seem more probable on naturalism than theism but even then, there is always a hypothetical possibility that God just set it up that way.
I'm curious though, what evidence from the observable universe would convince you that you might be mistaken in your God belief?

Ok fair enough, for someone that has no actual evidence of God and His loving character I can understand that.

Would you care to provide what is more probable on naturalism than theism?

My relationship with God is rather separate from all the evidence that supports who He is and what He relayed in the Bible. So while I feel the evidence supports the Christian God very well indeed, the universe would have to not have any characteristics that are presented in the Bible. No order for instance, just chaotic and unlawful behavior with no reason behind its nature. If I couldn't see how unlikely our existence in the universe seems to be and life was abundant and easy to show how it can arise by chemical processes over and over again, I might consider that the Bible was conveying a shadow of information that couldn't be understood or was not in evidence in the universe. However, I would still have the remarkable existence of God in my life and so I at this stage of the game I would still have God belief.

Oh wow, so long ago Generally I would say that all of my experiences could be explained by wishful thinking, wilful self deception and community reinforcement.

How do you know that you are not doing the same thing now? Wishful thinking that there is no God to worry about? Self deluding yourself that you need not worship anything? Just allowing the secular community to reinforce this wishful and self deluding new position?

Do you have any experiences of God that you would say it is impossible to have a naturalistic account of?

Absolutely.

Yup lots of different views, that said again the majority of scientists in relevant fields today don't believe in gods so...

I'm not sure if you are citing an argument from authority or Argumentum ad Populum or both.

Of course not but I don't find this a compelling response. The only world we know anything about is this one, and in this one God kills people and allows an astounding amount of suffering. Sure we can say, there could be a possible world where... But to me this seems weak. It would be like saying that it was OK for someone to kill a child because maybe of they hadn't that child would have grown up to do something bad. Sure it is possible but it does that excuse the act. I suspect you will want to respond that God is in a position to know all possible worlds and thier outcomes so that makes it different. But again we are back at free will. If there is no possibility that these people will choose not to sin then there is no free will. They are just acting according to thier nature's. As an aside, if every human is born with a sin nature and can't choose otherwise how can you say that Jesus who was 100% human never sinned? If sin is an inherent part of human nature, then either it was part of Jesus or he wasnt human in the relevant sense.

This seems contrary to what you have said in your argument, you claimed that God should have been able to make a possible world where free will and no suffering was possible; now you seem to want to disallow the same for me. In this world, the way the world is set up, God wanted free will and with free will the ability to do evil.

On Jesus and sin nature. Sin nature comes from the Male in humankind. The sin nature according to Scripture is set on Adam and throughout history the male inheritance of sin. God was the Father of Jesus, which was sin free.

I actually don't feel you have cohesive answers. What you have presented are tenuous possibilities,maube this is the best of all possible world's, maybe God has morally sufficient reasons for killing babies etc. These are not answers, they are statements of hope.

Yet, all you have are accusations that are not addressing all the nature of God within it. You are discounting the possibility of a good and righteous reason for the killing of babies with no evidence to support that conclusion other than your own morality which according to you is constructed of what a community deems moral, which means that God according to your own personal definition of morality is what someone feels subjectively themselves/or in a community is moral. How you can claim that God is immoral when in His community (He and His people the Jews) have deemed moral?

You hope that the genocidal, infant killing deity that you worship has a good reason, but you do the know that.

And you have determined there is no good reason and you don't know that.

What's worse is that in your world view moraloty is entirely subjective, it depends only on God's whim and so if God says killing children is good, then you have to agree... Right?

It is you that has claimed that morality is subjective, did you forget? You claim that morality is the result of what a community deems moral. That is subjective. Morality is not what God deems moral but what His moral character is. However, if your morality is based on God's moral character as evidenced by your own moral character that goes against your community for its position in view of abortion. If morality really is a community determined moral construct then you not sharing that position means that it really isn't based on the community but your own moral code which counters that of the community. Morality is what we ought to do, even when the community behaves differently.

Even worse you have expressed several times that we don't know the full nature of God, that we can't fully understand. This is despite his revelation, so it could well be the case that there is a characteristic of God that require him to string humanity along in the most possible suffering, when convincing believers that it is for the best. How could we know if this were the case or not?

This doesn't seem to be coherent, because we can't know the mind of God, He must not exist?

 

[Athée]

I asked AC so I'll ask you took, what evidence would be reflected in the geological record if a flood occurred? Just curious.

I would recommend going on talkorigins.org, they have a lot of good, we'll sourced info on this kind of thing. More, if you look at AC's posts on other threads he is much more knowledgeable on this subject then I so I will look forward to watching that exchange

. If I couldn't see how unlikely our existence in the universe seems to be and life was abundant and easy to show how it can arise by chemical processes over and over again, I might consider that the Bible was conveying a shadow of information that couldn't be understood or was not in evidence in the universe.

How have you determined that our existence and life in general is unlikely? What is your probability calculus and what assumptions are entailed?

How do you know that you are not doing the same thing now? Wishful thinking that there is no God to worry about? Self deluding yourself that you need not worship anything? Just allowing the secular community to reinforce this wishful and self deluding new position?

Great question, I can't be certain. I just think that when we don't know something, the more intellectually honest thing to say is "I don't know", rather than accepting an explanation (that doesn't actually explain anything) with only indirect and tenuous evidence at best.

Absolutely

I would really like to read an example of such... An experience with no possible naturalistic explaination. Looking forward to it

I'm not sure if you are citing an argument from authority or Argumentum ad Populum or both.

I am citing an argument from authority, which as you know is not a fallacious appeal when the authority being appealed to is a relevant one

This seems contrary to what you have said in your argument, you claimed that God should have been able to make a possible world where free will and no suffering was possible; now you seem to want to disallow the same for me. In this world, the way the world is set up, God wanted free will and with free will the ability to do evil.

Actually you also said that God can do this, you said in heaven there is free will and no evil. So you are saying that God could have done things that way but chose not to. He deliberately chose a world with suffering. You will want to say that he could have a good reason... Fair enough but there are words for conscious creatures who choose to inflict suffering on other sentient creatures when they could have avoided it.

On Jesus and sin nature. Sin nature comes from the Male in humankind. The sin nature according to Scripture is set on Adam and throughout history the male inheritance of sin. God was the Father of Jesus, which was sin free.

I have often wondered about this, God made them perfectly and told them not to eat the fruit. So if they were perfect why did they choose to disobey? I also wonder how they could be held morally accountable since the story clearly says that they had not yet eaten the fruit and so did not have knowledge of good and evil. They would have had no idea of the consequences. God warned them not to eat it but they would have had no idea it was good to obey God and bad not to do so.
Can you imagine if a human leader of a country dis something similar and punished all future generations for the "sin" of the parents who had no idea that what they were doing was wrong... What would you say about such a leader?

Yet, all you have are accusations that are not addressing all the nature of God within it. You are discounting the possibility of a good and righteous reason for the killing of babies with no evidence to support that conclusion other than your own morality which according to you is constructed of what a community deems moral, which means that God according to your own personal definition of morality is what someone feels subjectively themselves/or in a community is moral

What part of the nature of God am I missing?

How you can claim that God is immoral when in His community (He and His people the Jews) have deemed moral?

As I have said before knowlede plays a very significant role in morality. You believe that God has all possible knowledge and so no matter what the barbaric Jews of the time thought, God should have known that slavery and infant killing is wrong...but he doesn't seem to...

And you have determined there is no good reason and you don't know that.

So I have to ask, after reading the Bible, how did you determine that God was the good one and Satan the bad one?

It is you that has claimed that morality is subjective, did you forget? You claim that morality is the result of what a community deems moral. That is subjective. Morality is not what God deems moral but what His moral character is.

This is the classic first move in trying to escape the Euthyphro dilemma so I will restate it (always the second move) and hopefully you will be able to answer ...
Is God's nature good and moral because God says it is or is his nature good and moral because it conforms to an outside standard of good and moral?

However, if your morality is based on God's moral character as evidenced by your own moral character that goes against your community for its position in view of abortion.

Could you explain what you are asking here, I feel like it is a good question but I don't want to make assumptions

If morality really is a community determined moral construct then you not sharing that position means that it really isn't based on the community but your own moral code which counters that of the community. Morality is what we ought to do, even when the community behaves differently.

You have said often that I think morality is only a community consensus which is not actually my position. I think moral norms are based on the principles of harm and empathy. I think that as we gain knowledge about what is objectively harmful to humans we change our stance on moral issues. Yes this is a consensus project and so is to a degree subjective, but let me emphasize that it is no more subjective than your divine command theory

This doesn't seem to be coherent, because we can't know the mind of God, He must not exist?

Maybe I was not clear in my argument. I definitely did not say that because we can't know the mind of God, therefore no God exists.
Imagine that you are Eve, sitting in the garden with Adam and you decide to make a list of things God wouldn't likely do asked on your expert of him. So you start jotting down ideas... God who called everything good and loves all that he had made would probably not pick only one small group to live and tell them to kill other groups. You continue, he probably wouldn't order human sacrifice, he probably wouldn't drown almost everything on earth etc. Now as history progresses you find that you were wrong on each of those assumptions. Essentially you are finding out about characteristics of God that you had not previously imagined.
My point was a counter to your defence of God's baby killing. You argued that he had a good reason and that since Jesus would not order such a thing. But you have admitted to not knowing the mind of God. There could well be a characteristic of God that has not yet been evidenced that would make it inevitable that God would affirm the killing of babies and slavery and all that stuff all over again.
This does not go any way to saying God does not exist. It shows that you should be less confident in your assessment of God's character.
You want to propose a possibility that God has good reason for these things and argue from the possible worlds angle. The problem is that we don't have access to those other possible world, neither you nor I, so all we have to go by is the actions in this reality. If the Bible is true then God is a genocidal, abortion loving, slavery condoning, egotistical despot... Those are the actions you claim are historically true. In order to affirm that God is good you have to say that those actions were good and moral. But if genocide and cutting open pregnant women with swords is your definition of good, I don't think we have the same notion of what is good.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I would recommend going on talkorigins.org, they have a lot of good, we'll sourced info on this kind of thing. More, if you look at AC's posts on other threads he is much more knowledgeable on this subject then I so I will look forward to watching that exchange

Ok, I would assume then that you are in the same position as I am in determining what evidence is there and what interpretation comes from it.

How have you determined that our existence and life in general is unlikely? What is your probability calculus and what assumptions are entailed?

Yes, I have determined that the existence of life seems unlikely at least in this part of the universe as we have searched and found none anywhere else but Earth so far. I don't need a probability calculus to determine that life has not come about by any natural means from non-living materials in billions of years. That is pretty conclusive in itself.

Great question, I can't be certain. I just think that when we don't know something, the more intellectually honest thing to say is "I don't know", rather than accepting an explanation (that doesn't actually explain anything) with only indirect and tenuous evidence at best.

When you don't know, you don't know. However, I disagree that it doesn't explain anything nor that the evidence is tenuous at best.

I would really like to read an example of such... An experience with no possible naturalistic explaination. Looking forward to it

I don't share it.

I am citing an argument from authority, which as you know is not a fallacious appeal when the authority being appealed to is a relevant one

How and where did they receive this knowledge that provides them with the relevant information to determine God exists or not? What test did they run, what experiment led them to the conclusion that God doesn't exist? I am unaware of any such experiment that provides evidence that God doesn't exist. I look forward to your sources on this information.

Actually you also said that God can do this, you said in heaven there is free will and no evil. So you are saying that God could have done things that way but chose not to. He deliberately chose a world with suffering. You will want to say that he could have a good reason... Fair enough but there are words for conscious creatures who choose to inflict suffering on other sentient creatures when they could have avoided it.

No, you are putting words into my mouth. Heaven has free will and no evil but that comes only after being covered by Jesus and taking on the spiritual man only after acceptance of the spiritual world of Jesus.

You haven't given any alternative that would do otherwise and you don't have all the information needed to determine if such a world could have allowed for choice and goodness without the opposite existing.

I have often wondered about this, God made them perfectly and told them not to eat the fruit. So if they were perfect why did they choose to disobey?

Where does it say they were made perfect?

I also wonder how they could be held morally accountable since the story clearly says that they had not yet eaten the fruit and so did not have knowledge of good and evil. They would have had no idea of the consequences. God warned them not to eat it but they would have had no idea it was good to obey God and bad not to do so.

Ahhh, there you go. How does one choose good without knowing evil? How does one do good without knowing what it is to do evil? How did they know that they could in fact move against God's wishes if they were never shown they could? How could they truly know love or hate without experiencing both? Obedience or disobedience can only be known if you experience both.

Can you imagine if a human leader of a country dis something similar and punished all future generations for the "sin" of the parents who had no idea that what they were doing was wrong... What would you say about such a leader?

You are looking through a lens billions of years later, looking at it as a mere human vs. God. God knows that you and Eve would have done the same thing. God knows that Adam and I would have done the same thing. WE stand in our own sin as if we were the first spiritually created humans.

What part of the nature of God am I missing?

The mind of God.

As I have said before knowlede plays a very significant role in morality. You believe that God has all possible knowledge and so no matter what the barbaric Jews of the time thought, God should have known that slavery and infant killing is wrong...but he doesn't seem to...

You do realize that the Jews would send someone in prior to an attack and let them know that if they would let the Jews pass through it would be without any death at all? Every time they were going into a group's land they would send the same message. Do you think that is barbaric? I think it is very un-barbaric. The old, the young and the weak could go out of the city and find shelter if the people wished that to happen. We don't see that though, we see an arrogant and unflinching populace that are certain that they can wipe out the Jews with little effort, so little effort that they don't send out the old, the young or the weak.

So I have to ask, after reading the Bible, how did you determine that God was the good one and Satan the bad one?

Do you find it hard to determine? I think the message is clear.

This is the classic first move in trying to escape the Euthyphro dilemma so I will restate it (always the second move) and hopefully you will be able to answer ...
Is God's nature good and moral because God says it is or is his nature good and moral because it conforms to an outside standard of good and moral?

This is a false dichotomy. Good is not good because God decrees it, nor is it good because God received the moral good from outside of Himself. Good is good because it is grounded in God's own character.
God is the standard, He doesn't say He is moral, He is morality. It is His nature that determines morality. Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.
It is through this character that has been instilled in us, that we understand what moral and good are. We have the recognition of good even though we sometimes ignore that recognition.

Could you explain what you are asking here, I feel like it is a good question but I don't want to make assumptions

Sorry that was written poorly. It was a point rather than a question. Morality that human kind has ingrained within them is grounded in this moral character of God. We know we "ought" to do good. Your morality, that abortions are not good is grounded in this morality. Your morality that you use to counter what you feel is God's morality is grounded in God's character. You can't believe that God if moral would not kill infants. Yet, in doing so, you are using God's character instilled within you to determine it. Rather like breathing and claiming there is no such thing as oxygen. It is clear that there are cases that knowing all the information that killing might be actually the most moral action or if not the most moral but the best possible action for the greatest good. I am against unwarranted killing, yet if faced with my child being killed by someone I will go even to the extreme and kill that person to protect my child. If I knew that a person had a bomb that would kill everyone in the US and the only way to stop it was to drop a bomb on this person and his family including his children and his dog and cat; I would not hesitate to do it knowing that these people even the wife and children must be sacrificed if the men, women and children and all the animals in the US would die. If I can imagine some reason for me as a human being who reveres life and the right to life for all to kill children, how can I not imagine the same for God?

You have said often that I think morality is only a community consensus which is not actually my position. I think moral norms are based on the principles of harm and empathy. I think that as we gain knowledge about what is objectively harmful to humans we change our stance on moral issues. Yes this is a consensus project and so is to a degree subjective, but let me emphasize that it is no more subjective than your divine command theory

You have said "my divine command theory" but that is not MY position either. So you claim that your morality is all in what is objectively harmful...what is objectively harmful in your estimation, where does this objective standard arise?

Maybe I was not clear in my argument. I definitely did not say that because we can't know the mind of God, therefore no God exists.

Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Imagine that you are Eve, sitting in the garden with Adam and you decide to make a list of things God wouldn't likely do asked on your expert of him. So you start jotting down ideas... God who called everything good and loves all that he had made would probably not pick only one small group to live and tell them to kill other groups. You continue, he probably wouldn't order human sacrifice, he probably wouldn't drown almost everything on earth etc. Now as history progresses you find that you were wrong on each of those assumptions. Essentially you are finding out about characteristics of God that you had not previously imagined.

You do realize that this group of people were set as the ones who would be used for Christ's birth and salvation to the world right? Human sacrifice? That has an emotional connotation don't you think? Asking for human sacrifice goes with unwarranted death but you don't know that.

My point was a counter to your defence of God's baby killing. You argued that he had a good reason and that since Jesus would not order such a thing. But you have admitted to not knowing the mind of God. There could well be a characteristic of God that has not yet been evidenced that would make it inevitable that God would affirm the killing of babies and slavery and all that stuff all over again.

You seem to take two different stands I've noticed. You claim that taking slaves is immoral but to kill is immoral too. So if the Jews sent a message asking for the permission to pass through the land without any violence, but then were met with violence you seem to claim they shouldn't kill anyone but if they don't kill them they shouldn't take them in and make them slaves to them either. What would be your solution to this problem? You seem to have plenty of emotional animosity towards both actions, so what would you want to do?

This does not go any way to saying God does not exist. It shows that you should be less confident in your assessment of God's character.

You are right that it says nothing to the existence of God but it isn't my assessment of God's character but yours that lacks confidence.

You want to propose a possibility that God has good reason for these things and argue from the possible worlds angle. The problem is that we don't have access to those other possible world, neither you nor I, so all we have to go by is the actions in this reality.

Yet, you are claiming that God should have made the world without the possibility to do evil and that is not the reality of this world now is it?

If the Bible is true then God is a genocidal, abortion loving, slavery condoning, egotistical despot... Those are the actions you claim are historically true. In order to affirm that God is good you have to say that those actions were good and moral. But if genocide and cutting open pregnant women with swords is your definition of good, I don't think we have the same notion of what is good.

No, if the Bible is true God is the root of morality and that includes yours. If it is not, you have nothing to ground your own morality upon. What you claim is immoral doesn't apply to God or anyone else. You also can not cite any evidence that God didn't have a moral and righteous reason for every action that is depicted in the Bible. Also, you are claiming that God commanded cutting open pregnant women even after you were told that this passage was not a command of God but a warning and a prophecy of what would happen to the Jews of they ignored God and chose to go ahead and do wickedly as they were doing. I think that you ignoring this fact, makes your argument less than compelling as you would rather view God in this light, at least that is what it seems.

 

[Athée]

Yes, I have determined that the existence of life seems unlikely at least in this part of the universe as we have searched and found none anywhere else but Earth so far. I don't need a probability calculus to determine that life has not come about by any natural means from non-living materials in billions of years. That is pretty conclusive in itself.

It certainly shows that life is rare on a naturalistic account, I agree. Do you think saying that a magical being is responsible in necessary or just sufficient?

When you don't know, you don't know. However, I disagree that it doesn't explain anything nor that the evidence is tenuous at best.

I would say it does not add anything as an explanation to say.. "because God did it", solving a mystery by invoking a bigger musters doesn't add anything to the explanation of that initial question.
By your own repeated statement the evidence has to be tenuous at best, otherwise we might not have free will to disregard it.

I don't share it.

I am not at all surprised, actual evidence of the supernatural, with no possible naturalistic explanation would clearly demonstrate that the supernatural exists and I gather you don't actually want this to be the case. Forgive me if I am sceptical about your personal experience. Not that it is false but I am a pretty creative guy and I am willing to wager that I could generate a naturalistic explanation

How and where did they receive this knowledge that provides them with the relevant information to determine God exists or not? What test did they run, what experiment led them to the conclusion that God doesn't exist? I am unaware of any such experiment that provides evidence that God doesn't exist. I look forward to your sources on this information.

Maybe you thought this was about proof of God? I said that most experts in the relevant fields do not say that nature has been designed by an intelligent mind.

No, you are putting words into my mouth. Heaven has free will and no evil but that comes only after being covered by Jesus and taking on the spiritual man only after acceptance of the spiritual world of Jesus.

Are you saying that heaven didn't exist until after Just did his thing on the cross? What about all those Jess prior to BCE 30ish? If heaven existed prior to that event then there is your proof of concept that God can and has created a space with free will and no sin.

Where does it say they were made perfect?

I don't think it does. I may be reading too much into the text there. However, we are told that we are born with a sin nature because of Adam and that the reason for this was his sin. So presumably his nature was not sinful to begin with. Do you disagree?

Ahhh, there you go. How does one choose good without knowing evil? How does one do good without knowing what it is to do evil? How did they know that they could in fact move against God's wishes if they were never shown they could? How could they truly know love or hate without experiencing both? Obedience or disobedience can only be known if you experience both.

I wonder of you are missing the point I was trying to make. The Bible that you say is inspired by God himself tells the story in this way:
Adam and Eve get made
God tells them not to eat the fruit
They disobey and eat the fruit
At the moment of eating it they gain knowledge of good and evil.

So prior to eating it they had no knowledge of good and evil, they had no way to know that it would be wrong to disobey God.

Do you disagree?

You are looking through a lens billions of years later, looking at it as a mere human vs. God. God knows that you and Eve would have done the same thing. God knows that Adam and I would have done the same thing. WE stand in our own sin as if we were the first spiritually created humans.

So you are saying that the "test" was rigged. God knew that no matter what human he put this test to, they would fail. He also knew that the consequences of this would be eternal damnation for most, that he would have to kill his own son etc. And yet he chose to do it anyway... For his glory. Right?

You do realize that the Jews would send someone in prior to an attack and let them know that if they would let the Jews pass through it would be without any death at all? Every time they were going into a group's land they would send the same message. Do you think that is barbaric? I think it is very un-barbaric.

So if China sent a message to the US and said, hey heads up we are going to kill you, but if you don't resist and let us take you over then we won't. What would you expect your country to do?
Would you consider the Chinese barbaric for following through on that statement, if the US resisted them, or does it become OK to kill everyone because China warned them first?

Do you find it hard to determine? I think the message is clear.

Actually in retrospect I do find it difficult. Sure God tells us that he is the good one, but if Hitler had won, he would have told us he was the good one as well. If we look at the actions by each of them in the bible, who's actions are most consistent with being the good guy: God who orders genocide, commits genocide etc, or Satan who kills 10 people (job's family) but only does so with God's permission?

This is a false dichotomy. Good is not good because God decrees it, nor is it good because God received the moral good from outside of Himself. Good is good because it is grounded in God's own character.
God is the standard, He doesn't say He is moral, He is morality. It is His nature that determines morality. Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.

Please notice that I very deliberately did not set up the false dichotomy you are responding to here. I didn't say is moral good because God says so or because it conforms to an outside standard. If I had, your response about it being grounded in God's nature would make sense. This is why I specifically asked: is God's nature good because he says it is or because it conforms to an outside standard. Looking forward to your response

Morality that human kind has ingrained within them is grounded in this moral character of God.

This is of course simply an assertion and I would say a demonstrably false one as well. If there were an ingrained morality we would expect to see that morality expressed in all peoples, in all times. We would expect these values not to changes over time and by location. We actually observe both these things so it would seem that a single, divinely based morality is not common to all people.

Your morality that you use to counter what you feel is God's morality is grounded in God's character. You can't believe that God if moral would not kill infants. Yet, in doing so, you are using God's character instilled within you to determine it.

Assertion- see above. On the other hand on your world view you have to say that God killing babies is a good thing. You have to say that maybe there are good reasons for this. You don't k of that he has them, you just hope he does.

So you claim that your morality is all in what is objectively harmful...what is objectively harmful in your estimation, where does this objective standard arise?

The principle of harm.

You do realize that this group of people were set as the ones who would be used for Christ's birth and salvation to the world right? Human sacrifice? That has an emotional connotation don't you think? Asking for human sacrifice goes with unwarranted death but you don't know that.

So, would you consider it moral to have a bunch of kids, kill all of them but the first one, because he was the one you were planning on using to carry on the family name anyway?

You seem to take two different stands I've noticed. You claim that taking slaves is immoral but to kill is immoral too. So if the Jews sent a message asking for the permission to pass through the land without any violence, but then were met with violence you seem to claim they shouldn't kill anyone but if they don't kill them they shouldn't take them in and make them slaves to them either. What would be your solution to this problem? You seem to have plenty of emotional animosity towards both actions, so what would you want to do?

Where do you see the Jews asking simply to pass through? And yes both of those things, killing entire populations and taking slaves are both barbaric. They lived in a time when that was the norm so that is what they did, what I find strange is that you want to say that it was morally good when you believe in an objective moral standard based in God's character. I guess you actually don't think slavery is wrong...god doesn't... So I guess you agree with him?

You are right that it says nothing to the existence of God but it isn't my assessment of God's character but yours that lacks confidence.

This is exactly what I am trying to point out. You are very certain despite not having a firm foundation for that certainty.

Yet, you are claiming that God should have made the world without the possibility to do evil and that is not the reality of this world now is it?

Well I don't think evil exists in the sense you mean but I take your point... And yes, either he couldn't have done it any other way and isn't worthy of worship or he could have (like the example of heaven) and chooses not to and so doesn't deserve worship.

If it is not, you have nothing to ground your own morality upon. What you claim is immoral doesn't apply to God or anyone else. You also can not cite any evidence that God didn't have a moral and righteous reason for every action that is depicted in the Bible.

As I have said over and over the grounding for morality is the principle of harm and yes by that standard the God described in the Bible is immoral. I agree that I can't prove that an invisible, transcendent being, outside time and space could have no possible reason for committing immoral acts. But do you see the problem with that demand? If I can't prove that this magical being that we can't even demonstrate exists, doesn't have a good reason to cause suffering then therefore you are justified in believing that he does have good reason?

Also, you are claiming that God commanded cutting open pregnant women even after you were told that this passage was not a command of God but a warning and a prophecy of what would happen to the Jews of they ignored God and chose to go ahead and do wickedly as they were doing. I think that you ignoring this fact, makes your argument less than compelling as you would rather view God in this light, at least that is what it seems.

A prophecy is a statement about what will happen in the future, who is going to make sure that it will happen? God of course. So God is saying that in the future he is going to order his people to cut open pregnant women. Is it more moral because he is going to command this down the road as opposed to right away? Please don't answer that they have the chance to change course because the text clearly says this is what will happen, not what might happen.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

What would the fossil record reflect if a global flood occurred? I'm curious because this is not my area and I've not the expertise to counter any argument and so I won't probably go far with this line in our discussions but I am interested in what you feel fails in accordance with a global flood.

The answer to this question seems to vary depending on which creationist's view of the Flood we use, but in general terms I would not expect to see the fossil record arranged and segregated the way it is. If everything were killed at once in a global flood there is no reason to expect that we should find, say, jawless fish always showing up before jawed fish or amphibian-like tetrapods always showing up before advanced tetrapods like birds. Creationists have various rescue devices, but as I outline briefly here, they fail.

Do you also go to such lengths in regard to aliens, ghosts, and Sasquatch? Are you a member of any forums that discuss them?

I read articles, watch documentaries and listen to podcasts on these subjects and occasionally discuss them on forums as well.

So little things such as Israel becoming a nation once again after thousands of years is unconvincing? The little thing of the Bible saying thousands of years prior to that event that the Jews would be a distinct people being exiled all over the world would again come back to Israel in the later days and there would be areas that would withhold that exodus, one to the north and the other from the south. We know that Russia and Ethiopia would not allow them to leave. Finally they allowed it completing the prophecy. Israel was desolate when they started the return, but the Bible said that Israel would again be prosperous and the whole world would be concerned over it and we see that to be true; but this little sign is unconvincing to you even though it is right there before you? I don't see these as "little" signs but fairly right there in your face.

The prophesies in the Bible are problematic as I think Athée has discussed at length elsewhere. The prophesy that Jesus would return within the lifetime of eye witnesses to his ministry springs to mind. In any case, I don't think that is particularly relevant to the example I gave. Again, not a biblical scholar but I'm pretty sure there were a number of "fulfilled" prophesies at the time when Paul was running around persecuting Christians. Clearly they were insufficient to convince him. Then Bam! Miracle. Conversion. I am similarly unconvinced by supposedly fulffilled prophesies and God knows this, so why no eye-opening miracle for me?

It is very clear that God sees the end from the beginning according to the Bible. Any event is known before it happens, but that doesn't mean it is determined by God. I've used the example of my parents marrying and having two children. I know this but I didn't determine it to happen even though I know it happened. Had I the ability as God does to be outside of time, I could know this would happen "before" it actually did and still not affect the events. This is the same with Pharaoh or any human being. God knew that Pharaoh would act in a certain way without interfering with his free will at all.

You've said something along these lines before and it seems reasonable in the context of your belief, but it doesn't really address the question I'm putting to you. I'm asking you why the author makes the distinction between "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" and "Pharaoh hardened his heart" if they mean the same thing? Could you please respond to that question directly?

Also, I would like to hear your comments on the examples I provided of God hardening hearts before they hardened themselves. What of Sihon in Deut 2? Does this meet your challenge of finding God hardening a heart before the bible says they hardned their own?

What of God saying to Moses that he would harden Pharaoh's heart well in advance of the plagues and miracles? Why say "I will harden his heart" when you really mean "His heart will be hardened against me"? A direct answer to this question would be appreciated.

We can see in the cases that God has "hardened the heart" that the people involved had a certain character, a character of hardness, callousness and arrogance. They did wickedly to others. They had resisted God and continued in their wicked ways even after warnings and signs from God. They were willfully wicked and in Pharaohs case repentant only as long as the plague was active and then defied God again until the plague broke him again, and this happened over and over until finally God gave his final judgement against Pharaoh which allowing for Pharaoh's own character which hardened his own heart now God allowed that to be the judgement against him. He used the character of Pharaoh for His own means and to show that God would not be mocked and that Pharaoh's arrogance was his undoing. This goes along with scripture that states that God will give warnings and prophecies to enlighten the unbeliever but if the unbeliever continues in his own wicked way then God will bring judgement against them and in this case that judgement was to cement or harden the already hardened heart. God uses the same type of thing on believers as well. He provides suffering, mercy and the means to repent and some will do so with all their hearts and others will turn away.

This makes the case that Pharaoh hardened his own heart at various points and that it was all part of God's plan. However, it fails to answer the question of the biblical author writes that "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" and even tells Moses in advance that He will do so when the author really means that God was just letting Pharaoh (or Sihon) harden his own heart.

Ok.

If we take the Bible as truth which is what we are trying to determine in the long run, we see that these people were from a truly wicked group of people. We don't know that they didn't have some genetic disease that might have wiped out the Jews or if they would grow up being bitter against the Jews and do great evil within their communities either. We don't have all the information needed to determine what reason God had for not letting them live.

These explanations are completely unverifiable and in my opinion pretty unlikely. It also raises the question of why God would allow a people to exist whom he knew could not coexist with the Jews (too evil) and could not interbreed (genetic time bomb) and so genocide was the only option. You say killing babies is moral because God knows their future only holds evil, so why is the same not true of this entire race? Wouldn't it have been more moral by your own reasoning to eradicate the founding population rather than let it multiply into and entire nation against which God would later command his chosen people to commit genocide?

I believe that God is righteous and would not decide to eliminate babies if not for a very good and righteous reason that I do not have access to.

So yes, in this case killing all the babies was good and moral. Correct?

God can have mercy on anyone He wishes and it would be more merciful to allow them to die while their will was still free and good rather than allow them to live and continue their free will to do evil.

This doesn't address the question though. I am not asking what is the most merciful course of action. I am asking this:

Does killing those babies before they have a chance to choose evil violate their free will?

Please respond directly to this question. I'm not asking about what the most merciful, moral etc. course of action is. I only want to know if, in your view, killing those babies violated their free will. If not, why not?

I can not bring myself to believe that Jesus would ever ask me to kill babies. I would feel that something was wrong with my interpretation, my understanding or my mind rather than think that Jesus told me to kill.

Is there anything that would make you think that your relationship with God was an illusion or misunderstanding? I'm thinking no. From what you've said you are one million percent certain that God is real and you have a relationship with him. In this hypothetical you know with that same absolute certainty that Jesus has commanded you to kill babies. I understand that this is an unpleasant hypothetical to contemplate and I apologise for that, however a direct answer would shed light for me on the basis of your morality.

So again, would you kill babies if Jesus ordered you to? Why or why not? Would you consider such a command immoral? Or would you just not be able to bring yourself to do it even though you knew it was the moral thing to do?

I don't know if they can or not, I do know that they are not judged evil until they can make a choice. However, I know that you believe that our behavior is provided by our evolutionary makeup, how do people become evil in your estimation? A baby is born with the same mind that they die with, so how do you explain evil in an adult but not a baby in your worldview?

I don't think it can be reasonably argued that a baby has the same mind as an adult. A baby doesn't even understand that other people have feelings or can know things that it doesn't know and vice versa. And personalities change with age through a combination of social conditioning, hormonal activity and brain development. These factors influence the "evilness" of a person as they age. We know otherwise normal people can do horrifying things as a result of conditioning for instance.

I do.

Interesting. But earlier you implied that you took your orders from JC, not God. When I asked if you would kill babies if God told you to, you said you would not because "since the birth of Christ we are instructed by Christ". Wouldn't an order from God be the same as an order from Jesus?

My reasoning is that we can't really know if the sequences in the Bible Narrative are "out of line" because that line can move by millions and millions of years. We don't even have the earliest earth to make such determinations and there is plenty of time to have this sort of life existing and to have been destroyed prior to what we have actual evidence for. I find it rather amusing that people claim that the sequence is wrong when having a sequence at all that fits at all with evidence is pretty amazing in itself considering that it was written long before any such sequence of how life arose was known.

This seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You state here that the Genesis account doesn't seem fit the fossil record because things like angiosperms may move back in time with new discoveries, but you also assert that the fossil record actually fits Genesis very well. This is contradictory. You can't logically claim that Genesis correctly describes life as starting in the sea and then claim that Genesis is potentially right about angiosperms being the first life forms.

I assume you read my post about these sequences, other than the trees coming first there is no discrepancies in the account to fossil evidence.

This is incorrect to a substantial degree. First, angiosperms are the most diverse group of plants on the planet and inhabit every niche from ocean to mountain, so environmental limitation doesn't explain why they might be absent in the earliest rock record. They are incredibly common and appear in the fossil record with expected abundance. But not until the Cretaceous. In order to predate aquatic life as they do in Genesis, this incredibly abundant fossil record would have to have vanished completely for 400 million years. There are no examples of a fossil lineage being pushed back that far. It is extremely unlikely that we will suddenly find that they actually predate animals. There really is no ambiguity that I can detect here.

Also worth noting, Genesis says that land plants were created first, so this clearly doesn't fit your claim that Genesis accurately describes life as beginning in the ocean.

But this is far from the only discrepancy. According to Genesis all aquatic animals were created at the same time as birds on the fifth day but prior to land animals. Thus, according to genesis, whales, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs were all created prior to the land animals from which they evolved. Even if you don't accept evolution (can't remember what your stance is there), the fossil record definitively shows land animals appearing long before these aquatic animals. The first whales don't show up until around 50 million years ago. This means that we are again looking at a more than 400 million year gap in the fossil record.

And birds, as we know, evolved from dinosaurs, i.e. terrestrial animals, yet according to Genesis they were created prior to terrestrial animals.

Next we have all land animals, livestock and humans being created at the same time. Again, completely wrong. The first terrestrial animals were arthropods and their record predates the human fossil record by over 420 million years

So there you have a few quick examples off the top of my head. You're only support of the accuracy of the Genesis account is to posit that not one single representative of several extremely abundant, diverse groups of organisms (including angiosperms, one of the most dominant and abundant groups of organism on the planet) appears anywhere in the world for more than 400 million years. This seems wildly unlikely.

I am not going back to look, but I believe this is in regard to how we know which religion and its creation narrative can be determined from one to the other? It goes towards reason being a factor in determining truth or at least what makes more sense in regard to what we find in the universe and what is found in the Bible.

Sorry, I'm still not understanding how this supports the truth of the Genesis account.

Ok.

Yes, time periods that are sequenced by what came about during that time.


Don't we view plant life and animal life as two separate kingdoms of life? I don't know what you mean by floating around in the middle of Genesis.

So you do think that the order of creation in Genesis is the actual order in which various groups arose. As I have outline above, that position does not comport with the actual fossil record. I'm not sure what animals and plants being in separate kingdoms has to do with this; it doesn't alter the fact that Genesis erroneously claims angiosperms appeared first.

By "floating around in the middle of Genesis" I meant that the creation of aquatic life is on day six, not on day 3 where the first life (angiosperms and other land plants) is created. In other words, if one believes as you do that Genesis is a chronologicaly accurate account of the order in which various groups arose, it is impossible to claim that Genesis is telling us that life first appeared in the ocean when the creation of life in the ocean doesn't occur until day 6 after angiosperms on day 3.

As I've shown it is very much fitting with the fossil record that we have presently other than the evidence for the trees, but we don't have earth's earliest mantle or any evidence of it, for or against trees being present.

As far as I'm aware you have shown nothing of the sort. Please link me to the post where you present evidence for this. I have presented a variety of examples of major groups of organisms being completely absent from the fossil record for well over 400 million years. For such an absence to occur over and over among such huge groups and across such vast time periods with not one single representative specimen appearing anywhere in the world strains credulity.

We may not have sedimentary rocks that date back 4.6 billion years, but we do have evidence of unicellular life dating back around 4 billion years and actual fossils of bacterial life dating to 3.5 billion years. So now you're talking about finding angiosperms at the start of the fossil record after a gap spanning about 3 billion years. It is not reasonable to give this idea the same weight as the conclusion that angiosperms really only appeared around 160 million years ago at the oldest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It certainly shows that life is rare on a naturalistic account, I agree. Do you think saying that a magical being is responsible in necessary or just sufficient?

I would say both apply.

I would say it does not add anything as an explanation to say.. "because God did it", solving a mystery by invoking a bigger musters doesn't add anything to the explanation of that initial question.
By your own repeated statement the evidence has to be tenuous at best, otherwise we might not have free will to disregard it.

No, you are misinterpreting what I say. I say that there is always a way that someone can choose to interpret the evidence in the way they choose to.

I am not at all surprised, actual evidence of the supernatural, with no possible naturalistic explanation would clearly demonstrate that the supernatural exists and I gather you don't actually want this to be the case. Forgive me if I am sceptical about your personal experience. Not that it is false but I am a pretty creative guy and I am willing to wager that I could generate a naturalistic explanation

that made me smile. Anything of the natural world I suppose in some way could be explained in natural terms in most cases. Our lives are within this natural world so it stands to reason that we could always suppose some natural explanation if we didn't include all the elements of such an occurrence. By all means I would not expect you to take my word for it.

Maybe you thought this was about proof of God? I said that most experts in the relevant fields do not say that nature has been designed by an intelligent mind.

I didn't say anything about proof, science is not about proof. I asked what evidence provided knowledge that would inform them to conclude no intelligent mind was necessary for the universe's existence or for life on earth?

Are you saying that heaven didn't exist until after Just did his thing on the cross? What about all those Jess prior to BCE 30ish? If heaven existed prior to that event then there is your proof of concept that God can and has created a space with free will and no sin.

I didn't say that. No it doesn't.

I don't think it does. I may be reading too much into the text there. However, we are told that we are born with a sin nature because of Adam and that the reason for this was his sin. So presumably his nature was not sinful to begin with. Do you disagree?

No I do not disagree.

I wonder of you are missing the point I was trying to make. The Bible that you say is inspired by God himself tells the story in this way:
Adam and Eve get made
God tells them not to eat the fruit
They disobey and eat the fruit
At the moment of eating it they gain knowledge of good and evil.

So prior to eating it they had no knowledge of good and evil, they had no way to know that it would be wrong to disobey God.

Do you disagree?

I disagree. They were told not to disobey God, the consequences of doing so and how they would be disobeying.

So you are saying that the "test" was rigged. God knew that no matter what human he put this test to, they would fail. He also knew that the consequences of this would be eternal damnation for most, that he would have to kill his own son etc. And yet he chose to do it anyway... For his glory. Right?

Test? What test?

So if China sent a message to the US and said, hey heads up we are going to kill you, but if you don't resist and let us take you over then we won't. What would you expect your country to do?
Would you consider the Chinese barbaric for following through on that statement, if the US resisted them, or does it become OK to kill everyone because China warned them first?

They were passing through, they were not taking over their lands in the passages we were discussing. Yet, in with that you are equating God and humans. Do you think if God exists as claimed we are on equal footing with Him?

Actually in retrospect I do find it difficult. Sure God tells us that he is the good one, but if Hitler had won, he would have told us he was the good one as well. If we look at the actions by each of them in the bible, who's actions are most consistent with being the good guy: God who orders genocide, commits genocide etc, or Satan who kills 10 people (job's family) but only does so with God's permission?

Well considering that you have no interaction with God and know His kindness, love and mercy I don't doubt this.

Please notice that I very deliberately did not set up the false dichotomy you are responding to here. I didn't say is moral good because God says so or because it conforms to an outside standard. If I had, your response about it being grounded in God's nature would make sense. This is why I specifically asked: is God's nature good because he says it is or because it conforms to an outside standard. Looking forward to your response

How is this different?

This is of course simply an assertion and I would say a demonstrably false one as well. If there were an ingrained morality we would expect to see that morality expressed in all peoples, in all times. We would expect these values not to changes over time and by location. We actually observe both these things so it would seem that a single, divinely based morality is not common to all people.

Where is murder (unlawful, unwarranted, death caused by another) accepted? Where is stealing from others accepted? Where is lying an acceptable action within any community?

Assertion- see above. On the other hand on your world view you have to say that God killing babies is a good thing. You have to say that maybe there are good reasons for this. You don't k of that he has them, you just hope he does.

You are equally asserting that there was no good reason or reason for the greatest good that could explain it.

The principle of harm.

Morality is not always about harm.

So, would you consider it moral to have a bunch of kids, kill all of them but the first one, because he was the one you were planning on using to carry on the family name anyway?

Again, you seem to be equating humans and God. Do you think if God exists and created the universe and everything in it that He is equal to us?

Where do you see the Jews asking simply to pass through? And yes both of those things, killing entire populations and taking slaves are both barbaric. They lived in a time when that was the norm so that is what they did, what I find strange is that you want to say that it was morally good when you believe in an objective moral standard based in God's character. I guess you actually don't think slavery is wrong...god doesn't... So I guess you agree with him?

Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom would not hearken thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab: but he would not consent: and Israel abode in Kadesh.

This time for instance not only did they ask but God did not allow them to take the land from them. They were honoring God and doing no harm to others.

19'And Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon, and Israel said to him, "Please let us pass through your land to our place."…

Numbers 21:23
But Sihon would not let Israel pass through his territory. He mustered his entire army and marched out into the wilderness against Israel. When he reached Jahaz, he fought with Israel.

So God this time didn't allow Sihon and his people to be left alone and have Israel pass by but told them HE would deliver them into Israel's hand

This is exactly what I am trying to point out. You are very certain despite not having a firm foundation for that certainty.

And you are very certain despite not having a firm foundation for that certainty. I balance the Bible and God's revelation to me personally.

Well I don't think evil exists in the sense you mean but I take your point... And yes, either he couldn't have done it any other way and isn't worthy of worship or he could have (like the example of heaven) and chooses not to and so doesn't deserve worship.

Perhaps you can tell me what sense evil exists in your view? Bottom line is that you don't think that if God is the Christian God exists, that you don't think He is worthy of worship. Fair enough. You have judged God and found Him guilty, without a hearing or any evidence that the acts you judge were not done for a good and righteous reason. So on the day that you are before Him I am sure that you will be able to state your case but if God has a good reason and you find that you agree it was a good reason but it has stopped you from being saved then you have no one to blame but yourself...do you disagree?

As I have said over and over the grounding for morality is the principle of harm and yes by that standard the God described in the Bible is immoral. I agree that I can't prove that an invisible, transcendent being, outside time and space could have no possible reason for committing immoral acts. But do you see the problem with that demand? If I can't prove that this magical being that we can't even demonstrate exists, doesn't have a good reason to cause suffering then therefore you are justified in believing that he does have good reason?

If harm is the standard of morality, how does that relate to Justice? I am not claiming that I am justified in anything. I am saying that using my direct knowledge of God and His love and concern for me personally and understanding that a righteous and Good God could and would have a reason that is for the greater good of mankind, I have reason to believe the way I do. It may not be convincing to you but I feel my position is one based on personal experience and an understanding that things that might seem on the surface immoral, but may be actually moral in reality for the greatest good. What you call wishful thinking, I call coming to a logical reasoning based on all factors that I can form a conclusion from. You also equate man and God which is a false estimation. You might feel there is no way to demonstrate God exists, however, you have no evidence that He doesn't. Now you have no burden to provide evidence that He doesn't but one must reasonably ask if one doesn't believe He does exist they should have reason to believe He doesn't.

A prophecy is a statement about what will happen in the future, who is going to make sure that it will happen? God of course.

He doesn't make it happen, it happens and God knew it would happen but that doesn't mean because He knew that He orchestrated the actions of those that did it.

So God is saying that in the future he is going to order his people to cut open pregnant women.

Is it more moral because he is going to command this down the road as opposed to right away? Please don't answer that they have the chance to change course because the text clearly says this is what will happen, not what might happen.

He isn't ordering it done. It never says that he ordered it. Knowing that it will happen doesn't mean He orchestrates the actions taken.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The answer to this question seems to vary depending on which creationist's view of the Flood we use, but in general terms I would not expect to see the fossil record arranged and segregated the way it is. If everything were killed at once in a global flood there is no reason to expect that we should find, say, jawless fish always showing up before jawed fish or amphibian-like tetrapods always showing up before advanced tetrapods like birds. Creationists have various rescue devices, but as I outline briefly here, they fail.

Would you not just see what was living at the time of the flood dispersed all over the globe but other strata remaining where it is?

I read articles, watch documentaries and listen to podcasts on these subjects and occasionally discuss them on forums as well.

I see.

The prophesies in the Bible are problematic as I think Athée has discussed at length elsewhere. The prophesy that Jesus would return within the lifetime of eye witnesses to his ministry springs to mind. In any case, I don't think that is particularly relevant to the example I gave. Again, not a biblical scholar but I'm pretty sure there were a number of "fulfilled" prophesies at the time when Paul was running around persecuting Christians. Clearly they were insufficient to convince him. Then Bam! Miracle. Conversion. I am similarly unconvinced by supposedly fulffilled prophesies and God knows this, so why no eye-opening miracle for me?

Lets stick to the prophecies I presented.

You've said something along these lines before and it seems reasonable in the context of your belief, but it doesn't really address the question I'm putting to you. I'm asking you why the author makes the distinction between "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" and "Pharaoh hardened his heart" if they mean the same thing? Could you please respond to that question directly?

No, they do not mean the same thing. In the instances that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, it was written to show his character and his will to claim he was more powerful than God. When God hardens his heart, due to his already hardened heart towards God, He does it as a punishment for Pharaoh's hardened heart. He cements or stays the condition of the heart of pharaoh so that His plan to serve justice to Pharaoh is completed.

Also, I would like to hear your comments on the examples I provided of God hardening hearts before they hardened themselves. What of Sihon in Deut 2? Does this meet your challenge of finding God hardening a heart before the bible says they hardned their own?

It goes with punishment once again. IF you disobey God/act in wicked ways and are deserving of punishment this seems to be a method of punishment for it.

What of God saying to Moses that he would harden Pharaoh's heart well in advance of the plagues and miracles? Why say "I will harden his heart" when you really mean "His heart will be hardened against me"? A direct answer to this question would be appreciated.

See above.

This makes the case that Pharaoh hardened his own heart at various points and that it was all part of God's plan. However, it fails to answer the question of the biblical author writes that "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" and even tells Moses in advance that He will do so when the author really means that God was just letting Pharaoh (or Sihon) harden his own heart.

If I have the ability to look at all points of time at once, I would know at any point of time what was happening. That doesn't mean I orchestrate any of the happenings but I can make my own plans according to what will happen at the point of Pharaoh's activity, during and after and I can use that information to make those plans while not disturbing the activity at all. In Pharaoh's time, He was an evil man and did great harm to others and deserved judgement and justice was served by using Pharaoh's own hard heart and cementing that condition as punishment. I have no way of saying this is true, I am saying this is what seems the most reasonable explanation for me.

These explanations are completely unverifiable and in my opinion pretty unlikely.

How is your opinion more valid or is there anything at all to verify that my explanation is incorrect or less reasonable?

It also raises the question of why God would allow a people to exist whom he knew could not coexist with the Jews (too evil) and could not interbreed (genetic time bomb) and so genocide was the only option.

He allows free will, free choice and consequences for actions.

You say killing babies is moral because God knows their future only holds evil, so why is the same not true of this entire race?

That would be called the flood.

[Quote[ Wouldn't it have been more moral by your own reasoning to eradicate the founding population rather than let it multiply into and entire nation against which God would later command his chosen people to commit genocide?[/Quote]
The Flood. The entire population was so evil it could not continue at all. God wants intelligent beings to commune with. He is allowing free will but can not let that free will override His overall plan for salvation through His sacrifice of Himself to show His love for His creation.

So yes, in this case killing all the babies was good and moral. Correct?

If God is truly moral and all morality is grounded in His nature then yes. I believe that it means that there was a good and moral reason to act in this way. I believe that God is sovereign and has the prerogative to give and take life whereas humans do not. We don't get to play like we are God when determining to take a life but God has that right.

This doesn't address the question though. I am not asking what is the most merciful course of action. I am asking this:

Does killing those babies before they have a chance to choose evil violate their free will?

So you don't want to think about the most merciful or moral course of action in regards to this action but rather you want it to be black and white. Black and white, the children are being taken at a time when their will is completely their own and it doesn't violate their will to do so. If they were to choose to do evil, that would be their will and if God took them during this time it would have a different outcome but would not violate their own will to do so.

Please respond directly to this question. I'm not asking about what the most merciful, moral etc. course of action is. I only want to know if, in your view, killing those babies violated their free will. If not, why not?

See above.

Is there anything that would make you think that your relationship with God was an illusion or misunderstanding? I'm thinking no. From what you've said you are one million percent certain that God is real and you have a relationship with him. In this hypothetical you know with that same absolute certainty that Jesus has commanded you to kill babies. I understand that this is an unpleasant hypothetical to contemplate and I apologise for that, however a direct answer would shed light for me on the basis of your morality.

This is like asking if Oxygen didn't exist how would you breath? It is not even possible to contemplate because it goes against what we know to be true. Just because you can ask a hypothetical question doesn't mean it makes any sense in the reality of the situation. There is a complete transition that occurred with the life, death and resurrection of Christ that changed the dynamics of the way God works with mankind. That is woven into the very essence of our Christian faith. The Old Testament and the Jews and the New Testament of the Christians are separate for a reason. The way God worked then and how He works now are different and we see that in how Christ said to love our enemies and turning the other cheek. Our directives are completely different due to the completion of Christ's arrival on Earth. So you can use this hypothetical but it doesn't have meaning in Christianity. It goes counter to Christianity and you not understanding that dynamic speaks volumes of your ability to understand the spiritual realm at all.

So again, would you kill babies if Jesus ordered you to? Why or why not? Would you consider such a command immoral? Or would you just not be able to bring yourself to do it even though you knew it was the moral thing to do?

See above. God in the form of God the father, the son or the Holy Spirit according to the New Testament and the core of Christianity would not order such a thing to happen. Period.

I don't think it can be reasonably argued that a baby has the same mind as an adult. A baby doesn't even understand that other people have feelings or can know things that it doesn't know and vice versa. And personalities change with age through a combination of social conditioning, hormonal activity and brain development. These factors influence the "evilness" of a person as they age. We know otherwise normal people can do horrifying things as a result of conditioning for instance.

So are you claiming that no one is deserving of punishment of doing evil things if they are just factors of the personality due to social conditioning, hormonal activity and brain development?

Interesting. But earlier you implied that you took your orders from JC, not God. When I asked if you would kill babies if God told you to, you said you would not because "since the birth of Christ we are instructed by Christ". Wouldn't an order from God be the same as an order from Jesus?

I think you misunderstood what I meant. An order such as this would not come from God the father, Jesus the son, or the Holy Ghost. See above.

This seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You state here that the Genesis account doesn't seem fit the fossil record because things like angiosperms may move back in time with new discoveries, but you also assert that the fossil record actually fits Genesis very well. This is contradictory. You can't logically claim that Genesis correctly describes life as starting in the sea and then claim that Genesis is potentially right about angiosperms being the first life forms.

Fitting quite well does not imply perfectly, as you well know. It is hardly contradictory. I brought up the differences we denote for life ourselves by splitting plant life from animal life and it might have been poorly articulated when I said life began in the seas. We clearly see the separation of such in the Genesis Narrative.

This is incorrect to a substantial degree. First, angiosperms are the most diverse group of plants on the planet and inhabit every niche from ocean to mountain, so environmental limitation doesn't explain why they might be absent in the earliest rock record.

Really? You do realize that the time between the forming of the earth and the first known life is longer than the time since? You do realize that the earths earliest history (the surface of the earth) is lost to us and only a few rare examples are available at all? Life could have emerged and been wiped out many times before what we find in the fossil record. So while this is something that isn't in evidence due to lack of evidence, it hardly is evidence against such a possibility.

They are incredibly common and appear in the fossil record with expected abundance. But not until the Cretaceous. In order to predate aquatic life as they do in Genesis, this incredibly abundant fossil record would have to have vanished completely for 400 million years. There are no examples of a fossil lineage being pushed back that far. It is extremely unlikely that we will suddenly find that they actually predate animals. There really is no ambiguity that I can detect here.

Also worth noting, Genesis says that land plants were created first, so this clearly doesn't fit your claim that Genesis accurately describes life as beginning in the ocean.

Like I said above, I didn't articulate accurately.

But this is far from the only discrepancy. According to Genesis all aquatic animals were created at the same time as birds on the fifth day but prior to land animals. Thus, according to genesis, whales, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs were all created prior to the land animals from which they evolved. Even if you don't accept evolution (can't remember what your stance is there), the fossil record definitively shows land animals appearing long before these aquatic animals. The first whales don't show up until around 50 million years ago. This means that we are again looking at a more than 400 million year gap in the fossil record.

You need to look at what I posted and we will talk about this then.

And birds, as we know, evolved from dinosaurs, i.e. terrestrial animals, yet according to Genesis they were created prior to terrestrial animals.

There is evidence that supports that conclusion but many times new evidence will take this in a new direction, however, it doesn't matter because what we see in Genesis is not the first terrestrial animals but a very general list starting with cattle: And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. So we have a large amount of time prior to cattle and we are talking kinds here so we know that these kinds had previous kinds they came from.

Next we have all land animals, livestock and humans being created at the same time. Again, completely wrong. The first terrestrial animals were arthropods and their record predates the human fossil record by over 420 million years

See above.

So there you have a few quick examples off the top of my head. You're only support of the accuracy of the Genesis account is to posit that not one single representative of several extremely abundant, diverse groups of organisms (including angiosperms, one of the most dominant and abundant groups of organism on the planet) appears anywhere in the world for more than 400 million years. This seems wildly unlikely.

You are misrepresenting what I am claiming.

Sorry, I'm still not understanding how this supports the truth of the Genesis account.

Does the Genesis Narrative look more like what we see in the world or does turtles all the way down seem more accurate?

So you do think that the order of creation in Genesis is the actual order in which various groups arose. As I have outline above, that position does not comport with the actual fossil record. I'm not sure what animals and plants being in separate kingdoms has to do with this; it doesn't alter the fact that Genesis erroneously claims angiosperms appeared first.

By "floating around in the middle of Genesis" I meant that the creation of aquatic life is on day six, not on day 3 where the first life (angiosperms and other land plants) is created. In other words, if one believes as you do that Genesis is a chronologicaly accurate account of the order in which various groups arose, it is impossible to claim that Genesis is telling us that life first appeared in the ocean when the creation of life in the ocean doesn't occur until day 6 after angiosperms on day 3.

As far as I'm aware you have shown nothing of the sort. Please link me to the post where you present evidence for this. I have presented a variety of examples of major groups of organisms being completely absent from the fossil record for well over 400 million years. For such an absence to occur over and over among such huge groups and across such vast time periods with not one single representative specimen appearing anywhere in the world strains credulity.

We may not have sedimentary rocks that date back 4.6 billion years, but we do have evidence of unicellular life dating back around 4 billion years and actual fossils of bacterial life dating to 3.5 billion years. So now you're talking about finding angiosperms at the start of the fossil record after a gap spanning about 3 billion years. It is not reasonable to give this idea the same weight as the conclusion that angiosperms really only appeared around 160 million years ago at the oldest.

See above.

 

[Davian]

...
My relationship with God is rather separate from all the evidence that supports who He is and what He relayed in the Bible. So while I feel the evidence supports the Christian God very well indeed,

Of course. When your position is unfalsifiable, virtually anything can be said to support it.

the universe would have to not have any characteristics that are presented in the Bible. No order for instance, just chaotic and unlawful behavior with no reason behind its nature.

Yet you have no other universe with which to compare ours to qualify your opinion.

If I couldn't see how unlikely our existence in the universe seems to be

Alluding to probabilities for which you have never been able to provide math and data.

and life was abundant

Why need it be abundant?

and easy to show how it can arise by chemical processes over and over again,

Why must it be easy? We do not know what the exact conditions were when the process of life began, a process that may have taken hundreds of thousands of years. And you demand that it be easy to demonstrate?

Why don't you show me a god?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course. When your position is unfalsifiable, virtually anything can be said to support it.

Its nice that you agree it hasn't been falsified.

Yet you have no other universe with which to compare ours to qualify your opinion.

I wasn't trying to compare anything, I was discussing known facts in our own.

Alluding to probabilities for which you have never been able to provide math and data.

I wasn't alluding to anything.

Why need it be abundant?

Read my post.

Why must it be easy? We do not know what the exact conditions were when the process of life began, a process that may have taken hundreds of thousands of years. And you demand that it be easy to demonstrate?

I didn't say easy. I am talking about no life in the billions of years since the first life emerged coming from non-living matter.

Why don't you show me a god?

That is for God to do.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Would you not just see what was living at the time of the flood dispersed all over the globe but other strata remaining where it is?

Yes, exactly. But we don't see that. We see organisms segregated both stratigraphically and geographically, not jumbled together around the globe.

I see.

Yeah, if my participation in this forum is God calling to me, then the sasquatches are calling to me too. I need something much less subtle.

Lets stick to the prophecies I presented.

I decline on the grounds that the unreliability of a pretty major prophesy (Jesus said he would be back in the lifetime of eyewitnesses) substantially undercuts the impact of an extremely open-ended prophesy. That said, I would appreciate it if you could quote the prophetic passages directly.

In any case you have not addressed the main point of the excerpt to which you are replying. Paul was still industriously persecuting Christians despite there being a number of supposedly fulfilled prophesies. I am similarly unconvinced by supposedly fulfilled prophesies and God knows this. I can pretend to find them convincing, but I can't force myself to. So again, why should I be condemned to Hell because God doesn't feel like giving me the obvious sign he knows I need?

No, they do not mean the same thing. In the instances that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, it was written to show his character and his will to claim he was more powerful than God. When God hardens his heart, due to his already hardened heart towards God, He does it as a punishment for Pharaoh's hardened heart. He cements or stays the condition of the heart of pharaoh so that His plan to serve justice to Pharaoh is completed.

It goes with punishment once again. IF you disobey God/act in wicked ways and are deserving of punishment this seems to be a method of punishment for it.

See above.

If I have the ability to look at all points of time at once, I would know at any point of time what was happening. That doesn't mean I orchestrate any of the happenings but I can make my own plans according to what will happen at the point of Pharaoh's activity, during and after and I can use that information to make those plans while not disturbing the activity at all. In Pharaoh's time, He was an evil man and did great harm to others and deserved judgement and justice was served by using Pharaoh's own hard heart and cementing that condition as punishment. I have no way of saying this is true, I am saying this is what seems the most reasonable explanation for me.

So you do agree that in certain instances God himself hardened men's hearts. If you choose to view this as a punishment for past transgressions that is your prerogative, however it does not alter the fact that in these instances God has removed all possibility of changing one's mind. In other words in these instances he has robbed them of their free will. God wants us to choose to be with him or not, yet in these instances choosing God was not an option. Now from your posts here I would imagine that you would argue that God knows that they're never going to choose him so it doesn't matter if he robs them of any choice in the matter. But this is still an admission that in certain instances God is willing to suspend free will to achieve his ends.

This raises an obvious question to me: if you are willing to subvert free will do punish the creations you love, why not subvert free will now and then to save the creations you love? Is punishing the unfaithful more important than saving souls?

How is your opinion more valid or is there anything at all to verify that my explanation is incorrect or less reasonable?

To my knowledge there are no examples of entire nations that are genetically or culturally unable to be anything but evil or destroy other populations when they interbreed. I would suggest that this makes your suppositions less likely to be true.

He allows free will, free choice and consequences for actions.

But you are currently arguing that God was being merciful by killing those babies because they were destined to be evil. So why wait until there is an entire nation to mercy kill? Why not mercy kill the handful of people whom you as God know are going to produce an entire nation of evil people who will have to be killed later anyway, except now they'll kill a bunch of your chosen people in a genocidal battle? If God is willing to kill a nation's worth of babies without allowing them to make free will choices and experience the consequences of those choices, why not do the same to a few people much sooner?

Is he so concerned with punishment that it was important to him to first let that nation grow and be wicked (as he always knew they would be) so that they could be righteously punished (i.e. exterminated) later on?

Why condemn an entire nation of souls to Hell when acting sooner would prevent this at the cost of sending the souls of a few non-evil people to Heaven? I just don't how it is consistent for him to do this in one instance and not another, especially when one of the choices results in a few deaths and the other results in the death of a nation. If he's willing to kill an entire nation and include the babies as a mercy, why not avoid the whole calamity? We know that God is willing to step in at the cost of free will choices, so why not do it to save so many of his beloved creations?

That would be called the flood.

You misunderstand. God used the Flood to wipe out evil nations. I'm asking why he didn't eliminate the handful of individuals who founded these nations instead of such large scale slaughter. Isn't that more merciful?

The Flood. The entire population was so evil it could not continue at all. God wants intelligent beings to commune with. He is allowing free will but can not let that free will override His overall plan for salvation through His sacrifice of Himself to show His love for His creation.

So free will is so important to God that he'll kill most the planet's population to let it play out instead of stepping in early and killing a comparatively minuscule number of people, but he'll also step in and subvert free will when he wants to punish someone or achieve some goal?

If God is truly moral and all morality is grounded in His nature then yes. I believe that it means that there was a good and moral reason to act in this way. I believe that God is sovereign and has the prerogative to give and take life whereas humans do not. We don't get to play like we are God when determining to take a life but God has that right.

Okay. So we agree that from a biblical perspective large scale infant killing is under certain circumstances the moral course of action.

So you don't want to think about the most merciful or moral course of action in regards to this action but rather you want it to be black and white. Black and white, the children are being taken at a time when their will is completely their own and it doesn't violate their will to do so. If they were to choose to do evil, that would be their will and if God took them during this time it would have a different outcome but would not violate their own will to do so.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so perhaps you could rephrase it. It seems that your answer is that killing babies before they have the chance to choose good or evil does not violate their free will. Correct? I don't understand your reason though. What do you mean when you say that babies' wills are "completely their own"? I thought the whole point was that everyone's' will is completely their own.

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

Or do you mean that babies are already capable of making free will choices and have in some way chosen evil so it does not violate their free will to reap their souls?

This is like asking if Oxygen didn't exist how would you breath? It is not even possible to contemplate because it goes against what we know to be true. Just because you can ask a hypothetical question doesn't mean it makes any sense in the reality of the situation. There is a complete transition that occurred with the life, death and resurrection of Christ that changed the dynamics of the way God works with mankind. That is woven into the very essence of our Christian faith. The Old Testament and the Jews and the New Testament of the Christians are separate for a reason. The way God worked then and how He works now are different and we see that in how Christ said to love our enemies and turning the other cheek. Our directives are completely different due to the completion of Christ's arrival on Earth. So you can use this hypothetical but it doesn't have meaning in Christianity. It goes counter to Christianity and you not understanding that dynamic speaks volumes of your ability to understand the spiritual realm at all.

See above. God in the form of God the father, the son or the Holy Spirit according to the New Testament and the core of Christianity would not order such a thing to happen. Period.

If you asked me how I would breath if there were no oxygen I could answer very easily: briefly and ineffectively. I would not answer: Impossible to contemplate! Just because something does not comport with what we know doesn't make it impossible to engage with, at least not for me. What I'm trying to do is get to the bottom of your morality here.

In any case your stance raises some questions when we consider your belief in the Trinity. If God and Jesus are the same being, then surely it is consistent with Jesus' character to order the slaughter of children. If God's character is immutable and in the past his character did not prevent him from ordering babies killed, how can you say that ordering baby killings is inconsistent with God's/Jesus' character now?

And let me alter the hypothetical slightly. Same question, but in this version you are living in the time period when the events of the Old Testament take place, so currently God is occasionally ordering babies killed. Would you do it? You still have your personal relationship with God and he is still your source for morality, so would you kill those babies? Would you consider this immoral? Or would you believe it was moral but not be able to follow through with it?

And here's another situation. Jesus said that we should forsake our families and even hate them. If Jesus told you that if you wanted to truly be with him you were never to see your children again, would you do it? Do you really love Jesus more than your children (as you should, according to him)? Would you regard abandoning your family the moral thing to do?

So are you claiming that no one is deserving of punishment of doing evil things if they are just factors of the personality due to social conditioning, hormonal activity and brain development?

Nope. If you go back through the posts you'll see that my argument is that babies are not born evil. You disagreed (I think) and suggested that babies have the same mind as they do when they are adults. I countered that this was demonstrably not the case.

You need to look at what I posted and we will talk about this then.

I've done my best to understand your position. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to re-articulate your position? Do you think Genesis is saying that angiosperms were created first (day 3) and humans last (day 5)? As I said before, it seems like you have two options:

1. Genesis is an accurate account of the order in which things were created and this order should be seen in the fossil record to support your claim that Genesis is evidence of divine revelation.

2. Genesis is just an overview of things that were created over huge amounts of time and is not meant to give any particular order. If this is the case you cannot claim that Genesis fits the fossil record because it isn't giving us any information about what order we should expect.

Which is it? If there's another option, please articulate it clearly for my benefit.

Fitting quite well does not imply perfectly, as you well know. It is hardly contradictory. I brought up the differences we denote for life ourselves by splitting plant life from animal life and it might have been poorly articulated when I said life began in the seas. We clearly see the separation of such in the Genesis Narrative.

You have suggested that Genesis is just an overview of what arose during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. So why, as I have asked a couple times already, did the authors break it up into distinct days with a morning and evening? If they didn't intend to communicate that things created on day 3 were created prior to things on day 5, why write it in such a way as to communicate exactly that?

Furthermore, if Genesis is really just a general overview of creation that is not meant to present accurate chronological relationships, how can you claim that it accurately describes the order in the fossil record?

I still don't understand your point about the different kingdoms. Are you arguing that because both modern biologists and Genesis consider them distinct groups that this counts as a point towards Genesis being the result of divine revelation? If so I think this is a very weak argument. It doesn't even take education to detect that plants and animals are pretty distinct form each other, let a lone divine revelation.

You said this when arguing that the bible was accurate because it recorded accurate science that the authors could not have known unless by true divine revelation:

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

From this comment it seems to me that you are arguing that life began in the seas, that Genesis records this and that this is evidence of its veracity. It also seems like you are saying that Genesis is describing the sequence in which various groups of life arose. You tell me however that you misspoke. Would you please clarify what you were really trying to say?

In any case, I asked you of you thought that Genesis was a chronologically accurate account of the order in which life was created. You said it was. But the chronology laid out in genesis doesn't the fossil record as I have demonstrated.

Really? You do realize that the time between the forming of the earth and the first known life is longer than the time since? You do realize that the earths earliest history (the surface of the earth) is lost to us and only a few rare examples are available at all? Life could have emerged and been wiped out many times before what we find in the fossil record. So while this is something that isn't in evidence due to lack of evidence, it hardly is evidence against such a possibility.

How would life arising and vanishing multiple times support your argument that Genesis fits with the fossil record?

In any case, you've missed the point here I think. For Genesis to be correct, angiosperms would have to be the first organisms to appear. We agree that this is not what the record shows, but you posit that future discoveries will vindicate your belief. However, this means that a globally-dispersed, extremely common group of organisms with vast fossil record is mysteriously absent from the record for 400 million years. But here's what you've missed I think: The paucity of rocks from the very start of earth's history is irrelevant in this instance because that 400 million year gap is not composed of barren rock, it is full of fossils! Why do we have 400 million years worth of fossils but not one single representative from an extremely common, widespread group? And remember, it's not just angiosperms. This same thing happened with a variety of major groups.

There is evidence that supports that conclusion but many times new evidence will take this in a new direction, however, it doesn't matter because what we see in Genesis is not the first terrestrial animals but a very general list starting with cattle: And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. So we have a large amount of time prior to cattle and we are talking kinds here so we know that these kinds had previous kinds they came from.

I don't see how that passage supports any of what you've claimed here. Perhaps you could expand your answer. When it says "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind", how does that not refer to land animals in general? To what does "creeping thing and beast" refer if not to land animals in general? Where do you get the idea that there is a large amount of time elapsing prior to cattle?

Does the Genesis Narrative look more like what we see in the world or does turtles all the way down seem more accurate?

Genesis is less wrong than the earth being supported by infinite turtles, but this doesn't lend it even a tiny bit of veracity. Claiming that Jupiter is the smallest planet in our solar system is super incorrect, but it doesn't make claiming that Earth is the smallest planet any more correct.