What if you seek and don't find?

[Athée]

Hey Once, thanks for taking the time to respond twice!

The way I see it, it is the necessary part of the explanation.

Sure, I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. I don't see what saying " a magical being did this by magic" helps explain anything, you think God is the ultimate explanation for everything and gives it purpose. For what it's worth, If God existed I would agree with you

What evidence we do have provides necessary are needed to make a universe. The incredible necessary elements stretch the credibility of anything like a universe by chance to be near nonsensical IMHO.

This sounds like an appeal to the teleological argument. How would you present the teleological?

I disagree. The majority of the population of the earth do share the belief that God created the universe and the fact that some of them have got the wrong God doesn't mean that God is lacking in putting that information out there.

Actually it shows that even if your interpretation of Romans was correct (and I demonstrated clearly that it was not) there is a problem. You believe that God, not just a generic deity concept but your specific God, Yahweh, has made himself known to all through creation. Most people do not believe that Yahweh exists, therefore of he does exist he has failed to communicate it effectively.

That is not completely true. It is true that neither of us has demonstrative evidence of our positions but you are working from the absence of evidence of God's existence and I am not. I have more pertinent information to inform me.

This boils down to: God has given me personal information that makes me know I am right, even though there is no evidence that this is the case. Not very compelling.

What evidence convinces you that provides your basis for nature being shaped by chance and circumstance.

Trick question?
Evolution is exactly this. Natural selection, working on random mutations, selecting those which perform a function that enhances reproduction. You end up with features that perform a task really well.

Logic tells me that Ed is just a made up entity that you have made up to fit the evidence. I base this on the fact you told me you were making him up, that no one anywhere has claimed that there is an evil entity that provides good to illuminate the evil. If you want me to look at possible alternative explanations, it is best to use something that can be shown to be one.

You are still missing the point. The Ed hypothesis accounts for the data exact as well as the Yahweh hypothesis. You say I have made up the Ed hypothesis and this is exactly what I think your God concept is, simply that it was invented a long time ago and evolved. In any case you said you have proved no other possibilities existed. I have given you the Ed possibility. Give me a single bit of evidence or some sort of counterfactual that nullifies the Ed hypothesis and I will stop asking about it. But until that time you are simply not justified in claiming that your God is the only possible explanation. Some accusing me of making Ed up doesn't constitute such evidence by the say since it could be the case that Ed exists but simply fooled me into thinking I invented the idea, specifically so that you would not believe in him, therefore causing you to dedicate your life to a fake God and caring you immense suffering and regret upon meeting Ed when you die.

I can and do use the Bible, evidence from Scientific studies and personal experience to make my claims... what have you used?

In this instance using the Bible is circular. It is true that God is the only explanation because it is in the Bible and we know the Bible is true because it is the truth inspired by the one true God....
Secondly, I have not seen you invoke any science on this question (nor should you, I think you are thinking of some other question) and lastly personal experience is terrible evidence.

Again a good point. But lets move this in a bit. If we were not here to know the truth would the truth still exist? Would A still be A? Would A still be A and not B? Could something be true and false at the same time?

I justify the claim by the fact that the Laws of Logic transcend the human mind.

I kept these together because they seemed related.you are saying that of something can exist independent of human minds then it proves it is dependent on God. This is flawed. I would argue that the laws of non contradiction would hold even if no God existed. If you disagree please demonstrate why God is necessary as a foundation for the laws of logic.

Good for you! I'm glad you didn't just rest on the first information you had. Now, this doesn't make you wonder? Why would all modern humans come from one woman and one man?

Thanks for the compliment but surely you see the irony here! I specifically said that the science is unclear, that we don't know if they lived thousands of years apart of at the same time. You then use this uncertainty as an opportunity to claim with certainty that they did exist at the same time by assuming this in your question, how did we all come from one man and one woman. This is exactly the argument from ignorance fallacy that I specifically wanted you not to fall in to when discussing this exact evidence. Moreover, you didn't acknowledge that the science also says that mitochondrial Eve is not the same thing as first female human. Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent female ancestor of all humanity. Not at all the same thing. There could have been generations before this mitochondrial Eve. In short you have focused on the small part of the science that seems to confirm your conclusion about a historical Adam and Eve, but have ignored the rest of the data. This is classic confirmation bias. If you want to make the claim that science has confirmed Adam and Eve, please make the case and address the objections that lead the vast majority of relevant experts to disagree with your interpretation of the science.

And I am honestly surprised that you think you have it all laid out. IF one takes the Christian worldview, it is perfectly cohesive that Satan exists and has from the beginning twisted truth and has been responsible for the other false religions. I have no way to substantiate it, but it is cohesive with my worldview and is not inconsistent.

Yes it is consistent but doesn't in any way solve the problem unless you also believe that Satan is more powerful than God. If not then God has allowed, and indeed even planned for Satan to do all these things. The problem remains, God is in charge and his plan is as I described. How is this not incompetent? Or I guess just plain cruel would be another way of explaining the data.

I never said we have absolute morals

You said that morals are objective and that they are based in the character and nature of God, which never changes.

What makes you think that he wants us to suffer?

Becaise he could have created us in heaven with him, perfect and without the inclination to sin. He didn't because we need to experiment life on earth and choice and all that jazz (this is according to your world view bu the way) meaning that he had a reason for us to be in this suffering.

Why do you think that most won't go to heaven? How do you determine that?

Easy, Jesus said so.
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Matthew 7:13-14 ESV
http://bible.com/59/mat.7.13-14.ESV

And there you have it. Many end up on the path to destruction and few even find the path to life.
Please answer the question in which this appears.

I hope that you agree that my response above is more than a simple assertion.

Actually no...
Assertion 1.God is a Just God.
Assertion 2.He is loving yes,
Assertion 3. He is good yes, but He is also just.
Assertion 4. He is also totally righteous and can not be in the presence of sin or evil.
Assertion 5. God provides justice for all that have been wronged.
Assertion 6. If there is justice, God provides mercy as well.
Assertion 7. The mercy is in the covering of Jesus paying the debt.

And ultimately all of this rests on the basic assertion that the Bible is the word of God. We will have to discuss this eventually but we should probably wrap up some other stuff first

Do you believe that understanding that she should not eat the apple equates to knowing good and evil? I think that is a stretch to say the least. What was Eve's punishment and why? Please try to answer that in the Biblical context it is written in. How it effects the nature of all those that are born after? We are physical beings and we inherit from our parents. There must have been a genetic change which would seem the most logical but I don't know.

I'm confused. You seem to be making my point for me. Knowing good and evil are not the same as knkwing she should do what God said... Therefore when she disorder eyed God she did so without any knowledge that it was evil or sinful to do so. You can still say she sinned but she certainly didn't knowingly sin. How is this just? Can you imagine putting your kids in a situation where they have to make choices based on very important rules but then not telling them what the rules are. Then to make it worse the consequences for breaking the rules are incredibly severe and there is no second chance. Would you consider yourself a just parent?

It was through their faith. They believed God. He told them to do the sacrifices to foreshadow the coming of Christ covering our sins by His shed blood (or dying for us), they did this by faith knowing that God existed and the Messiah would come.

Are you saying that if the news had not done any of the sacrifices God had told them to do, but had believed in God and in the messiah, that they would still have been cleansed from sin?

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

You ha e cited this a blog times now but never provided any commentary. How do these verses show that Jesus in the OT didn't need to perform the sacrifices God told them to, in order to be cleansed.

He doesn't. All can be saved.

Well no this is not true. God knew before he created the universe that not all of us image bearers would be saved.

I don't believe He does.

I'm confused, how does my analogy fail? God chooses a single people group to bring about the future he wants = parent chooses 1 special child invest in for the future of the family.
God ignores the other groups leaving them outside loving relationship with him = parent ignores other disabled children
Parent is unloving and unjust for doing this, therefore so is God.

It could be some do get saved by waiting

Does it bother you that you have to rely on speculation so often do make the case for God being good?
God planned for Adam and Eve to sin... But maybe there is a good reason.
God allowed Satan to mess everything up... But maybe there is a good reason.
God drowned men, women, children, infants, foetuses in the flood.... But maybe there was a good reason.
God allows entire Nations to flourish, only to have them all killed... But maybe there is a good reason.
I could do this for hours but here is the point that.
From a speculative premise you only ever get a speculative conclusion.
I understand that I can't prove with absolute certainty that there is no possible explanation for why a God would do these things. On the other hand your only defence for these actions is that God is not like a human and maybe he has good reasons. This means that the absolute strongest conclusion you can reach is that MAYBE God is good.

Like doing it yourself, and then of course it is still considered immoral. You have to remember that God was using the situations and circumstances to show the Jews how to trust Him and leading them to be holy people which could not be done in amongst very evil people. There was purpose in everything that was being done.

Nope, good effort though... How about this as a God I could move them to another planet, or I could just force them to love me, sure that isn't as great as them choosing it but at least I don't have to send then to a he'll that wasn't even made for them.Even better all thier kids would be raised in an environment where they would choose to love me! Problem solved and no genocide required
I guess I am smarter than God...

We know that one evil person can bring about the death of millions of people. Literally millions. What might 12,000 evil people be capable of? It seems perfectly logical to believe that eliminating evil that might actually have the possibility to create such horrendous harm to others that it is better to do harm to some to save most.

This is pure speculation with absolutely zero evidence to support it.

What informs you that God has predestined anyone?

These are just the obvious ones... There are more
How blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to You
To dwell in Your courts.
We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house,
Your holy temple.

– Ps 65:4

The Lord has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.

– Prov 16:4

And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

– Mt 24:31

now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?

– Luke 18:7

So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,

And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.

– Acts 15:17-18

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

– Romans 8:28- 30

Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies;

– Rom 8:33

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

– Romans 9:11

For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

– Romans 9:15-16 (the whole chapter)

God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

– Rom 11:2

In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

– Romans 11:5-7

but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;

– 1 Cor 2:7

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,…

also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

– Ephesians 1:5,11

knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;

– 1 Thes 1:4

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

– 2 Thes 2:13

Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

– Titus 1:1

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

– 1 Peter 1:2

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

– Rev 13:8

God never thought divorce was moral. He allowed it but He didn't think it was moral.

So God told them to commit sinful acts?

The point which I am thinking you must have missed why else would you claim I might be intentionally changing it up or something...If a man (not a slave) is struck with a stone or fist and doesn't die (if he dies he will be avenged just like the slave) if he lives and can walk around he will not be punished (be clear) but has to pay for the loss of his time. If the bondsman or bondswoman who is hit with a rod and dies they shall be avenged (just like the free man) if the bondsman or bondswoman lives and does not die then there is no pay for loss of time because the slaves are not free and work for money for the owner and so the owner is not required to pay the slaves money like they would have to for a free man. The punishment for death is the same for free and bondsman but if they live the only difference is that the owner doesn't pay out money because the slave makes money for the owner and the free man has to be compensated for the time he is down. Do you understand now what I was getting at?

I am going to cite the verses again just to be clear:

“When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed. “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Exodus 21:18-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.18-21.ESV

Once, with all due respect, your reading of this simply does not make sense.
First the verse says nothing about the quarling man dying and being avenged. As far as I can tell you have simply added that in, I have no idea from where. Thus the first parallel that you make is simply not in the text.
Then you seem to imply there is only a minor difference between a free man being allowed to rest and heal and be compensated for this time and the slave who gets nothing. Under these laws it is morally acceptable for me to break a slave's leg (they won't die within a couple days) and I won't have to compensate them because I own them.
But since God says it I guess you also believe this is OK?

Objective morality: Moral values that are true independent of the belief of human beings. Moral facts that exist as true and false.
Absolute morality: A set of moral facts that are true regardless of circumstance.

I don't see how those are different. Do you believe that objective morals exist? What about absolute morals, do these exist? Can you give me some examples from each category. Thanks!

Another explanation that explains the many facets of my beliefs. For instance, something that would explain how something or someone that had the ability to manipulate the natural world at will. In explaining that it would have to explain elements of the universe as well...and so forth. An alternate explanation would have to explain a multitude of elements that make up my belief that God exists and who He is including how that information was given.

Or maybe the explanation could simply explain why humans believe things that are not true? I will get to work on making this case but am just waiting to clear up a few of our other lines of discussion.

 

[Davian]

Of course they don't, you know why? Because they know that it is impossible. There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter.

I have seen you make this blanket statement before. Have you ever considered substantiating it?

In an earlier post I mentioned that as my children approached the ages where they might ask these 'big' questions, I sought to inform myself, as least to the laymen's level of understanding on this subject.

To that effect, I googled to here: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here: The Origins of Life | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Here: Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Lifes Origins - YouTube

and I listened to this lecture series:

The Great Courses - Origins of Life

01 The Grand Question of Life's Origins.mp3
02 The Historical Setting of Origins Research.mp3
03 What Is Life.mp3
04 Is There Life on Mars.mp3
05 Earth's Oldest Fossils.mp3
06 Fossil Isotopes.mp3
07 Molecular Biosignatures.mp3
08 Emergence.mp3
09 The Miller-Urey Experiment.mp3
10 Life from the Bottom of the Sea.mp3
11 The Deep, Hot Biosphere.mp3
12 Experiments at High Pressure.mp3
13 More Experiments Under Pressure.mp3
14 Deep Space Dust, Molten Rock, and Zeolite.mp3
15 Macromolecules and the Tree of Life.mp3
16 Lipids and Membrane Self-Organization.mp3
17 Life on Clay, Clay as Life.mp3
18 Life's Curious Handedness.mp3
19 Self-Replicating Molecular Systems.mp3
20 Gunter Wachtershauser's Grand Hypothesis.mp3
21 The RNA World.mp3
22 The Pre-RNA World.mp3
23 Natural Selection and Competition.mp3
24 Three Scenarios for the Origin of Life.mp3

Have you gone through any of this information yet?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have seen you make this blanket statement before. Have you ever considered substantiating it?

In an earlier post I mentioned that as my children approached the ages where they might ask these 'big' questions, I sought to inform myself, as least to the laymen's level of understanding on this subject.

To that effect, I googled to here: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here: The Origins of Life | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Here: Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Lifes Origins - YouTube

and I listened to this lecture series:

The Great Courses - Origins of Life

01 The Grand Question of Life's Origins.mp3
02 The Historical Setting of Origins Research.mp3
03 What Is Life.mp3
04 Is There Life on Mars.mp3
05 Earth's Oldest Fossils.mp3
06 Fossil Isotopes.mp3
07 Molecular Biosignatures.mp3
08 Emergence.mp3
09 The Miller-Urey Experiment.mp3
10 Life from the Bottom of the Sea.mp3
11 The Deep, Hot Biosphere.mp3
12 Experiments at High Pressure.mp3
13 More Experiments Under Pressure.mp3
14 Deep Space Dust, Molten Rock, and Zeolite.mp3
15 Macromolecules and the Tree of Life.mp3
16 Lipids and Membrane Self-Organization.mp3
17 Life on Clay, Clay as Life.mp3
18 Life's Curious Handedness.mp3
19 Self-Replicating Molecular Systems.mp3
20 Gunter Wachtershauser's Grand Hypothesis.mp3
21 The RNA World.mp3
22 The Pre-RNA World.mp3
23 Natural Selection and Competition.mp3
24 Three Scenarios for the Origin of Life.mp3

Have you gone through any of this information yet?

I have a few. Perhaps you could present from this material what is so convincing to you that non-living matter became living matter?

 

[Davian]

I have a few. Perhaps you could present from this material what is so convincing to you that non-living matter became living matter?

I am not saying that it is convincing, but that scientifically, it is the only horse in the race.

You made the claim that "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Do you retract this claim?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not saying that it is convincing, but that scientifically, it is the only horse in the race.

You made the claim that "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Do you retract this claim?

Are you aware of any non-living matter becoming living? I didn't see anything in the few I looked at.

 

[Davian]

Are you aware of any non-living matter becoming living? I didn't see anything in the few I looked at.

I am not going to drive in circles in that Dodge of yours.

You made the claim that "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or retract it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not going to drive in circles in that Dodge of yours.

You made the claim that "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or retract it.

Provide evidence that non-living matter became living matter and I would be inclined to do so. It is not up to me to provide evidence for your claims.

 

[Davian]

Provide evidence that non-living matter became living matter and I would be inclined to do so. It is not up to me to provide evidence for your claims.

I do not recall making a claim.

However, you made the claim that "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or retract it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I do not recall making a claim.

However, you made the claim that "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or retract it.

I am not aware of any non-living matter becoming living matter. Until the time comes that I have an awareness of such evidence I will do no such thing.

 

[Davian]

I am not aware of any non-living matter becoming living matter. Until the time comes that I have an awareness of such evidence I will do no such thing.

And if you are not looking, I doubt you will find such evidence.

However, you made the claim that "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or retract it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And if you are not looking, I doubt you will find such evidence.

However, you made the claim that "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or retract it.

I can not produce evidence that I am not aware of. I am not aware of any evidence that informs us that non-living matter became living matter.

 

[Davian]

I can not produce evidence that I am not aware of. I am not aware of any evidence that informs us that non-living matter became living matter.

Sure, but the claim you made was "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or retract it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure, but the claim you made was "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or retract it.

Davian, seriously do you ever tire of playing this boring games? I know of no evidence anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter. If you would like to produce any evidence of non-living matter becoming living matter then by all means bring it forward as I have no awareness of it. If you fail to provide this evidence of non-living matter becoming living matter I will assume that my statement was a correct one.

 

[Davian]

Davian, seriously do you ever tire of playing this boring games? I know of no evidence anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter. If you would like to produce any evidence of non-living matter becoming living matter then by all means bring it forward as I have no awareness of it. If you fail to provide this evidence of non-living matter becoming living matter I will assume that my statement was a correct one.

The game I tired of was your well-worn one of:

Once: <unevidenced claim>
Davian: That is an unevidenced claim
Once: Are you claiming the opposite? Show your evidence for this!

It is blatant attempt to shift the burden of evidence, and intellectually dishonest.

The claim you made was "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or, if that is not what you meant, retract it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fair enough. I'm not under the illusion that I'm of special significance. However, this would mean that, although God apparently loves me deeply and is also omnipotent, the minute effort it would take on his part to show me (or a similar non-believer) the sign I need to be saved is not really worth it.

I know that God doesn't come without being invited first. Have you asked?

Well that's kinda the point we are discussing here. You say he isn't, it seems to me he is. He does say there will be angels with him. Were there any angels mentioned at the Transfiguration?

The whole context is:

"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?27"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS..."For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.

This part of the passage is discussing the end of days. He says He is going to come. This is very important...HE is there, why would He claim HE would come in the glory of His Father with His angels to Judge mankind? This also says that He would judge mankind then. Putting it in the end of days for certain.

Now the next passage talks about them having a taste of this:

"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Then it goes on to show Jesus's transfiguration as fulfillment. When looking up the greek in this passage the word coming is different for the first mention of coming and the second.

If this were in the language we now would use it would go something like this: The soul is the most important element for a man. What good is gaining the whole world if a man loses his soul. What can a man exchange for his soul? In time I will come bringing the Glory of God the Father with His angels and I will judge each man according to his deeds. Honestly, there are some of you standing right here that won't die until you seeing me coming in His kingdom.

Anyway, you haven't addressed the point I was making in the section you quoted. What do you think of the way Jesus speaks in such dramatic terms, saying that some of his listeners would surely still be alive to see the kingdom of God, when he's referring to an event 6-8 days in the future?

Why not? It was an incredible experience. Peter describes it in 2 Pt. 1:16-18 “ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with him on the Holy mountain.”

Clarification: Do you believe that Jesus will return before your death?

I believe it is the generation that witnessed Israel becoming a nation. That generation will be the one that will not all die out before Christ returns.

Could you please lay out your reasoning (with scripture ideally) for saying that Jesus really meant our generation when he said "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened"? That seems pretty misleading to the people standing in front of him.

See above.

Edit:
Another question. Can you supply any linguistic support for why the words "kingdom of God" in Luke 9 refer to the Transfiguration but in Luke 21 refer to the final coming? The words used are the same in greek as well, so what is your reasoning for saying one refers to the transfiguration and one to the second coming? Put another way, what allows you to rule out the second coming as the subject matter of Luke 9:27?

See above. Not only that Jesus said clearly that He didn't know when the second coming would happen but He knew when He would be transfigured.

Not at all. First, there are a bunch of people like you who will be convinced by more subtle experiences. Second, I'm not suggesting God mind control us into loving him. I'm saying he could temporarily override our free will (as he did with Pharaoh) to force us for an instant to know he exists, feel his transformative love and his glory. Thereafter the person could write it off as a hallucination or decide not to turn to God because he asks too much of them etc. They still get to choose whether or not to devote their lives to God, except now there's actually a possibility that they will chose God.

And of course there's always the option of giving a big, obvious sign of his existence to people like me whom he knows cannot otherwise be saved.

I don't think that Pharaoh's will really changed. He would have softened enough to let the Jews go but he still didn't change his mind about God. So I don't really believe that Pharaoh's will changed, he didn't change his mind in regard to God, He just would have given in.

Also, you assume that the experiences I've had are subtle but that is not the case. Some have been very much like the ones that I think you are looking for.

I mean a push like either of the ones I just described, the kind of push that people like me require.

I don't know how much you desire to know God. It changes your whole life you know. People assume you are less intelligent for being a Christian. They assume you don't understand fully science and the reality of the world. You have a lot to lose if you chose God.

Interesting. I don't have children, but I know without a doubt that if it were in my power I would force my wife or my brothers to take the life-restoring cure no matter how intensely philosophically opposed they were.

Life to you is this life, only this life and once this life is over there is nothing else. I understand your desperation to the point of forcing your will on another. I just really don't know what I would do.

So God wants us to go from no belief to pledging ourselves to him without a stop in between where we know he exists and decide what to do about it? Perhaps Pharaoh was too stubborn, but if I were pummelled with clearly divine wrath I would accept God's existence and most likely chose him.

Will you? If God is pouring out His wrath will you accept Him or would your anger at His actions cement your will against Him? In the Bible it says that even though people will know that it is God that is pouring out His wrath they still don't accept Him. Yet, it also says that so many people do turn to God that their numbers are huge. So maybe you'll be a tribulation saint, who knows.

At the risk of sounding flippant, there's also never been any evidence of faeries. Is this because they were eliminated?

I was being flippant as well so no problem.

You're proposing that each member of these nations, from infant to geezer, was the sort of person to cause mass slaughter? Again, the absence of evidence of any such populations makes this seem unlikely to me.

No, I am not saying that each and every person would cause mass slaughter, I was using that as an example. Evil has many levels. I would suppose you would agree?

This last part is what your belief really relies on though, which is the point I'm making. You believe that there must be a good reason even if you have no evidence for it besides your belief that God exists and is good. Science requires that evidence to hold a position. The fact that knowledge advances doesn't alter this dynamic.

That is evidence, all our experiences are evidence of some kind or other. Yes, I believe due to faith using the experience I have of God that there must be a very good reason behind things that might seem to be "not good".

Humour me. Where do the scriptures support these assertions?:
1. Being created precludes having a sinless nature
2. Being having a sinless nature requires omniscience, omnipotence etc.

What you say is common sense does not seem at all apparent to me, so I would ask that you support your position with more than assertion.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Our thoughts are limited to our physical brains. As physical beings we do not have unlimited access to complete knowledge. Without complete knowledge we can't determine what our actions will cause for others.

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

God is righteousness and perfectness. It is not an attribute that He could create us with as it is His nature not attributes that come from His character or nature. They are what God is.

Interesting. So you think it's possible that God created souls that he knew from the beginning would be damned? How is that loving or merciful?

I felt a nudging from God that I needed to look at this again. What I am finding is that predestination and free will choice are both used in the Bible. So I can't say definitively a certainty in my answer to you but what I am finding in the Bible is that there are people that God knew would do evil and He has placed them in certain places in history to fulfill His purposes. For instance, Pharaoh. God knew that this soul would be evil no matter what world, place in history or time He would live; so He put Him where He would be used for His purpose. He doesn't take away their wills but allows for their wills to use for His own purposes in History. For instance Judas. He knew that he would do evil in any world, whatever place in history, or time that he lived so God placed Him in the place in History to allow His evil to work for God's plan. Yet, there are those that He knew would always choose God in any world, any place in history and in any time so He put them in the places where this would be used for His purposes. They still had the choice but God knew before hand what they would chose and placed them for His own purposes where they ended up. They still had the choice, Paul for instance, had the choice to go on killing Christians but He chose to follow Christ.

You say you don't think our actions are known until our "existence in this realm begins"? Even God doesn't know? Doesn't he know everything?

I don't know if this is the case or not. I'm in instruction mode.

This is fine rhetoric, but it certainly doesn't reflect my situation and I suspect it doesn't reflect the position of the vast majority of atheists. I haven't chosen not to be convinced. I just have not been sincerely convinced of God's existence.

As I said quite a while ago, if I had an experience like Paul's I would be hard-pressed to write it off as a hallucination. I would almost certainly believe I had experienced the supernatural.

I am giving you the Bible verse that provides the information that is relative to what you are referring to. What makes you think that you are not being blinded by Satan for instance?

It would have been helpful if you'd just clarified your position here. If you don't think that killing babies before they can make a free will choice violates their free will, please explain why. I've made this request of you many times and I would appreciate the courtesy of a direct answer. Why does preventing babies from making this choice not violate their free will?

They have no will against or for God when they are below a certain age. So their will is not against God nor for Him. So it doesn't violate them being for Him nor against Him. I don't know any way to make it clearer.

You're saying that the flavour of our love for Jesus should not be the same as for our children. Fine. But I'm confused. We are not supposed to love Jesus more than our children but we are also not supposed to love him equally (in terms of intensity of feeling, not the kind of love). That seems contradictory

Matthew 18:1
“At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child, and had him stand among them.
3 And he said, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.”


Jesus said that if you receive a child in his name, you receive him and the one who sent him.
"Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me." (Mark 9:37)

So as you see Jesus believes that children are so important that we receive Him if we receive a child.

Children are a gift from God, so Jesus does not expect us to put our children away from us at all. We are to cherish them as much as we cherish Him.

I do. The situation is different however. In the case of independently-derived eyes, we see different structures performing a similar function. With angiosperms you're talking about an entire organism's worth of distinct structures evolving twice. It's possible, but it is nowhere near as parsimonious as concluding that angiosperms evolved just once, where the fossil record shows their appearance. That said, I look forward to reading this article you mention.

If it is possible at all, and there is evidence that could suggest that possibility, then why would you claim it is nowhere near as parsimonious they evolved only once? While you can accuse me of using my bias to conclude that the evidence supports my belief, I can equally do so to you. There is no conceivable evidence that prohibits the plant life that was producing oxygen very early on (before the Cambrian) did not evolve into angiosperms and then be wiped out. There are millions upon millions of years that they had to evolve whereas there is a relative short time span when we see them evolving later on.

It seems to me that it is, so I think it would be productive at this point if you were to explain exactly how the logic is different. I meant it when I said those questions were not rhetorical.

Your argument is as follows:

1. There is evidence of Precambrian plants
2. Therefore it is possible that angiosperms actually evolved first in the Precambrian rather than in the Mesozoic where their fossil record begins.

My horse argument:

1. There is evidence of Paleozoic tetrapods
2. Therefore it is possible that horses (tetrapods) actually evolved first in the Paleozoic rather than in the Cenozoic where their fossil record begins.
This reasoning looks identical to me. Please make explicit the ways in which you disagree.

First of all we have a good fossil record beginning with the Cambrian. We don't have much at all of a fossil record before the Cambrian. We know that during the time where the plants would be evolving there were events that could very easily wiped out whatever life was present during that time. That is not the case with later periods.

You're doing that thing again where instead of answering my questions you ignore them to ask questions of your own. As I've said, I have no issue with answering your questions so I think it is bad form to decline to answer mine.

That was my answer, my answer is in bold:

Do we mention every single insect in our science books when we say insects appear in the Devonian? Do we mention every animal in our science books when we say animals first appear in the Cambrian?
The point was to give a chronological order in which life came into existence. Which should be considered pretty amazing considering that at the time no such evidence of that happening existed.

Were there whales in the Cambrian? How about Mosasaurs, Ichthyosaurs?
My point with this question above was very significant. I believe the Genesis Narrative gives us the same time frames as we call the Cambrian and so forth. So the day where it says:

And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
This is taking about the Paleozoic through the Mesozoic. It doesn't include all life during that period but ends in birds to give us the time span.

So...No, we don't list every single insect when we speak of their first appearance. But in no textbook will you find the claim that every insect arose in the Devonian. Same with animals. In contrast, Genesis very explicitly states that "every living thing" in the water and birds appeared before land animals. Now that I have answered your questions as I always make the effort to do, would you please answer the question I have asked you a couple times now?:

1. Explain why "every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it" does not include whales, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs etc.

the Paleozoic through the Mesozoic does include the dinosaurs. Whales are not mentioned but they would come in with the next day. The next day is what we call the Age of Mammals.

Why does "every" not mean "every"?

Just like Cambrian doesn't have all marine life to ever live, neither does the Genesis record. See above. However, every living creature that existed during the time period called the Cambrian was EVERY living creature that lived in that time period. Just the same as cattle not appearing in the Cambrian, we would see cattle on this day.

"Should" has nothing to do with it. To me it seems that "the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals” encompasses any land animal I can think of, so I would appreciate it if you could explain why this is not so. You have offered no reasoning that this doesn't refer to the origin of land animals in general, you have merely asserted that it doesn't.

I explained above.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The game I tired of was your well-worn one of:

Once: <unevidenced claim>
Davian: That is an unevidenced claim
Once: Are you claiming the opposite? Show your evidence for this!

It is blatant attempt to shift the burden of evidence, and intellectually dishonest.

The claim you made was "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter." Substantiate it or, if that is not what you meant, retract it.

No this is like:
Davian: You have no evidence for God existing.
Me: provide evidence that God doesn't exist.
Davian: I don't have to provide evidence for a negative.

I don't ask you to provide evidence that God doesn't exist because you don't have to get evidence to show my claim is false, I have to provide evidence that my claim is true and He does.

This is the same thing. I don't have to provide evidence for something I don't know exists.
I am not being dishonest and this is the last time I will respond to anything you post if you continue to make unfounded accusations against me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And since I am apparently busy sticking my nose in....

Once: you have said a couple times in conversation with AC that since the life and work of Jesus you are certain that God would be longer order a follower to kill someone. I have a couple questions ( like always )
1. What specifically has changed
2. How does this/these change/s necessarily require that God will no longer ask for killings to occur
3. How do you know that this situation will not change again tomorrow?

I missed this post.

1.Jesus was born, died and rose again.
2. We are in the age of Grace or of the Gentiles. No longer is God making sure that Jesus comes into the world. The purposes for the killing are no longer there.
3. We know what is to come. It is already written.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is simply not the case. Romans 1 is talking a out a group of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (18), and then tells us about this group. In v. 19 we get the first refers to "them", this is important because it is the same group from . 18 and the text stays consistent all the way through with the same "them" and "they". So what do we know about this group.
V. 21 they knew God but did not honour him, or give thanks, became futile in thier thoughts, darkened hearts, claimed wisdom but we're fools.
V. 22 were idolaters worshipping or appeasing images of man, bid, animal and creeping things.

This is useful so at the very least we know that v18-20, is only referring to this group of idolaters. But there is more...

V24. God gives them (the same them as before) up to lusts of the heart ( because they exchanged truth for a lie)

V. 25 For this reason - (so what is to come next is a direct consequence of what was just said about the "them"), God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Meaning that the women and men became homosexuals.
Then in V 28. God gives them (same them) up to a debased mind and they go on to do a whole list of things: envy, murder, strife, deciet, maliciousness, gossip, slander, hating God, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, invent evil, disobey parents, foolishness, heartlessness, ruthlessness, approve others who do these things.

So who is all of this about. I remember hearing my paster say that this verse is really about all of us, since there is bout to be at least one thing on that list that each if us has done. However, in context of the entire section this is clearly not the case.
That consistent them who are without excuse are a specific group of people who know God but reject him, are idolaters with graven images, are homosexuals and have mids that commit that list of things.
So unless you want to make the case that all non believers are idolaters and homosexuals plus all that other stuff, then it is clear that this is about a specific group.

So are you trying to say these were believers?

In contrast to Romans, here in Corinthians Paul really is talking about all people. He begins by setting the stage, we are talking about people who will sacrifice to idols, specifically food in this case. Paul aknowledges that there are many spiritual beings but affirms that the Christian know there is only one true God, Jesus Christ.
In V 7 we are told, but not all possess this knowledge,meanjng that not everyone knows this. Or put another way, there exists a set of people who don't know Jesus is Lord. Who is in that set, all people who don't yet know this truth.

You seemed to put great store in the next bit but I am not even sure how it is relevamt to the point you were initially making using Romans, that God has made himself plain to all (and if we keep reading that all non believers are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness). Here Paul clearly says that this is not the case. Many do not know Jesus as God (this being one of his attributes). The last bit that I didn't cite is just Paul bringing it back around to the people who were sacrificing food to idols saying that they are too weak to accept the truth of Jesus, that they try to appease all these other beings.

This verse shows that it is not just the specific people your are referring to:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

WE are the things that are made.

Not sure where this is from but it ses to be a predestination passage?

How is that a predestination passage?

Right the God of this world, Satan (autocorrect really wanted that to be Santa) has made it so some people won't believe. This would seem to only strengthen my case that God has not made himself plain to everyone in a way that they will know him and his attributes.



So I asked you this question:



You answered with a question and didn't address my question in any way. That said yes I see differences between the salvific elements of the OT vs NT but my views are not relevant to you supporting your assertion that you know God would not ask you to kill someone today because since Jesus things are different. Hopefully you take a bigger swing at the heart of the question next time round

I went back and did.

 

[Athée]

So are you trying to say these were believers?

This verse shows that it is not just the specific people your are referring to:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

WE are the things that are made.

So the problem might be your odd translation. The section you are referring to as "we", being the things made is actually a dependent clause. I will give you the ESV version which makes the grammar more clear.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:18-21, 23-30, 32 ESV
http://bible.com/59/rom.1.18-32.ESV
So you can see that things made is a data set that acts as evidence for God's attributes, specifically for this group of people. The problem with your interpretation of this text is that you stop after your proof text even though the author does not. You want to end with an "ah ha!" moment where God has made himself plain to "them" so they are without excuse. But the text continues. It tells us more about this mysterious "them" and as I showed in an earlier post it does not at all line up with your reading that it is all humanity. Of you think it is about all humanity please read the while passage and explain where I have gone wrong in my analysis.
I also notice that you didn't deal with the counterfactual point form Corinthians so even if you can explain how my reading of Romans is mistaken (I doubt this is possible... But I have been wrong before!) you still need to explain how in your view Romans says everyone knows and Corinthians says not all men know.

Looking forward to it

 

[Athée]

I missed this post.

1.Jesus was born, died and rose again.
2. We are in the age of Grace or of the Gentiles. No longer is God making sure that Jesus comes into the world. The purposes for the killing are no longer there.
3. We know what is to come. It is already written.

1. Fair enough (on your world view of course)
2. Age of grace sure, but what does this mean exactly in relation to orders to kill people? If I understand you properly you are saying that the only reason God ever had anyone killed in OT times, was because it was necessary for his plan to bring Jesus to the world. Is that right?
3. Are you talking about the book of revelations ?