What if you seek and don't find?

[Oncedeceived]

It (God) could not be both real and fictional to you. Which was it?

He could have been either.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why do you insist on projecting your experiences to other's experiences?

This is the human experience.

 

[HitchSlap]

He could have been either.

A cannot be not-A.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A cannot be not-A.

True. He was either real or He was fictional.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is the human experience.

According to whom?

 

[HitchSlap]

According to whom?

Us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Us.

We don't agree so how can it be "us".

 

[HitchSlap]

We don't agree so how can it be "us".

Us, as in mankind.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Doesn't mean there won't be.



There you go, the same for me. I was searching for truth myself. I really had no preconceived ideas about whether God really existed or not. I had no commitment to any one belief. I wasn't an atheist, or agnostic or a believer. I was just simply curious. Did a God exist? If so what God or all gods might exist. If God didn't exist that would not change my life one iota at the time. Yet, I did wonder how so many Christians were soooo sure that their God existed. I didn't get it. I never got it until God reveled it to me.

I have no way of knowing whether or not that is true. I don't think that you believe that you have. Is there something in your life that you know from knowing what God expects or looks badly on that you do regularly in your life? That you know God would think is a sin?

There could be a revelation coming, it's true. But it doesn't really deal with the issue that a whole bunch of people with attitudes similar to mine die and are damned because they never got the kind of sign we're talking about.

I regularly take the Lord's name in vain. I hear that one's a big deal, but it's hard to take it seriously without already believing there is a Lord. Does this mean I have chosen to be fooled by Satan?

The fact that the very next line goes to this happening is a very good indication that this is the fulfillment of that very thing. Not all the disciples were present which even supports the fact that only a few of them would witness Him coming into His kingdom. Something of this much importance would make it seem logical that all of them would be there to witness it. Not only does it say that this event occurs but that "after these sayings" it occurs. So it links them to the event. More importantly, if they didn't see the kingdom if they believed that this saying of Jesus was about the actual earthly kingdom coming and then they don't see it why would they record it knowing it didn't happen? If you are making up a story, you are going to have to make sure it fits with all your facts. I mean this is a pretty big error on Jesus's part if He really meant the final coming.

Sorry, I got my lines mixed up. What I meant was, why is everything up until the end of line 26 talking about the Second coming but line 27 is suddenly talking about something completely different with no transition of any sort in between? You say 26 is about the Second coming whereas 27 refers to the Transfiguration, but there is nothing in either line that indicates a change in subject.

You do realize that Jesus did this all the time. His references to His death were vague at times. The fact that Luke links the two events together by writing, "after these sayings".

Could you quote me some examples where Jesus refers to something a few days away as if it were going to take place a long time in the future?

You are ignoring other comments made by Jesus. He has said to His disciples that the second coming will be only when God says it will and God the father is the only one that knows when it will happen. So if He didn't know when it would happen how would He know if any of the disciples would even still be alive?

In Luke 21 Jesus says the same thing and you agree that there he is referring to Judgement Day. He is saying that this set of people will still be alive when he returns. So if his lack of knowledge about the exact date of his return means that Luke 9:27 can't be referring to the Return, then Luke 21:32 can't be referring to it either. But you agree that it is.

Yes, I do believe that the second coming will happen before everyone alive to see Israel become a nation dies.

The oldest verified person was 122 years old. Someone born the same day as Israel would be 68. So in 56 years everyone who witnessed the birth of Israel will probably be dead. This means that there is a chance that I will still be alive to see that you are wrong about the return of Jesus! Also, is this interpretation just that, or is it one of those God-given thoughts?

So are you asking why God can't save everyone by altering their will for even a moment? I don't know. Perhaps He can and doesn't. I don't have enough information to determine whether that is possible in regard to His overall plan. It seems He has done it in the past and so we know He has the ability but why He doesn't for everyone can't be known.

So my idea is, as far as you are able to argue, a workable proposition. That's the point. God can and does override free will, so he could have done it that way and saved a whole bunch of souls that would otherwise be damned. You assume he has a good reason for damning all those souls, but you have only your faith that God is as good as you think he is. To me it doesn't comport with any definition of good or loving I know of.

I really don't know. I don't like to determine life and death scenarios, I don't have that right.

Really? Even if you knew your child would be truly dead (and let's say damned) for believing a stupid thing that prevented them from taking an easy, life-saving solution, you still would maybe let them die? As I said before, a very disturbing attitude. Call me arrogant, but I just can't imagine letting someone I loved kill themselves by doing something so unbelievably stupid when I had the power to intervene. I don't care if I have the right to or not. I would rather my wife leave me and hate me than have her dead because she believed something stupid.

This is a category error. Do you equate something we know exists such as evil people and faeries?

Ignore the faeries then. The lack of evidence for the existence of X cannot seriously be considered to support an inference that X existed but was wiped out, correct? If you disagree, please explain.

I find a group of people that sacrifice their babies by fire to a god to be an evil population. I think that they did uniformly do evil as a population and as such would be considered evil in my estimation. Maybe not each and everyone of the children would turn out to be mass killers if they were to even continue the practices of their group, that would continue an evil population.

You're still talking about an entire nation that would have still been evil even if the young were transplanted to a different cultural context in which baby sacrifice was not okay. No such inevitably evil population has ever been shown to exist.

I went back to see what this is in reference to and I can't find it. How were we comparing science and good reasons for jew behavior?

We were discussing the utility of faith versus science in approaching truth. With that in mind, here's the excerpt again: You believe that your god has a good reason for apparent atrocities even if you can't think of one that comports with external evidence. That's in contrast to science wherein conclusions must comport with evidence external to your own beliefs on the subject.

Who knows? I sure don't.

Jesus was fully man, correct? But he was also sinless. Thus being created does not exclude a sinless nature. If "I don't know" is the best response you have for this, then you aren't justified in asserting that a created being can't be sinless.

Lets put it simply...we can not have God's nature because we are not God. Can't be God and only God is sinless.

Putting it simply will not do. You are simply asserting your position, not supporting it. I would appreciate you actually addressing the argument I make here:

Your support for omniscience being necessary for sinlessness doesn't fit with your statement that God's sinlessness an attribute of his nature, not something that comes from his nature. If omniscience is a prerequisite for sinlessness, that means sinlessness is something God does by exerting his omniscience to avoid ever doing anything that would affect others in such a way that his actions could be sinful. Sinlessness is thus something that God does rather than something he is. If you disagree, please explain in detail why.

If you don't feel like it or can't, then you are not justified in asserting that sinlessness requires omniscience.

Edited because I missed this:

Do you think that punishing a child for wrong doing and loving them is contradictory? Do you think that God should have just created those that would accept His gift of salvation?

I don't think they are contradictory. I do however think that punishing your child forever for doing something you knew they were going to do from the beginning is antithetical to love. When you punish your child it is because you are trying to teach them something for their own good. Killing an entire planet and damning their souls irrevocably does not serve this purpose because those that were punished have no opportunity to change their behaviour. This is more like beating the s*** out of one child as a warning to your other child. Does that seem loving?

That is not what I said and you know it.

I asked if God knows what we will do before we begin to exist, for is he not omniscient? You answered that you didn't know. I took this to mean that you are unsure as to whether God knows everything we will do before we begin to exist. If he doesn't know this then definitionally he can't be omniscient. I always do my best to understand my interlocutor's position. If you think I have misrepresented it then please correct me.

What is your point? That God shouldn't violate free will under any circumstance including allowing children in heaven when they haven't chosen to be there; so it would be best if they were allowed to go to hell? Or are you upset that you haven't been given the same opportunity to not have a choice? Emotionally, it seems right. But do you think that Stalin or Hitler should have that same opportunity to not have a choice? What of all the millions that were killed and suffered horrible deaths crying out for some sort of justice for their lives being cut short? Does God just say that He's sorry they were done wrong but there is nothing He can do about it?

No, none of that is my point. And you have not answered the question I have asked you many times now. I will restate my point and my question and hope that you have the courtesy to finally answer it.

My point with this baby-killing/free will thing is that God is willing to subvert free will to serve his purposes. You don't seem to agree that killing babies before they make their free will choice violates their free will. So...

If free will in this context is making a choice for or against God, why does it not violate free will to take that choice away?

If I were deciding who to vote in an election and I hadn't yet made a choice it would be a violation of my right to choose if one of the candidates were to cast my vote for me.

That is false. I have included the information below.


1. We have evidence that the plants on land before the Cambrian would have very complex metabolic capabilities. There is no fossil evidence as of yet but scientists think this could be because they are soft and would not preserve well.
2. You have said yourself that there have been great mass extinctions all throughout early history, this is a very safe assumption to make based on other events of the same.
3. We know that the modern plants tested show according to their molecular clock that they go back 700 million years so it is conceivable that they could have evolved similar structures or even dissimilar ones that still classified them as angiosperms as we know them.


Actually no, I think that when you look at the new evidence that we have it is very parsimonious with that evidence to conclude that plant life, life that molecularly are akin to modern plants.

Actually, first of all, it is very common for new fossil evidence to arise that moves first appearances millions and millions of years earlier. So the fossil record is not absolute.

I don't think you've quite grasped what parsimony means. It doesn't mean "consistent with evidence", which is what you seem to be saying when you wrote that your conclusions are "very parsimonious with that evidence". Parsimony is a way of choosing between different options that are consistent with the evidence by choosing the option that relies on the fewest assumptions.

1. You have data that indicate plants were capable of photosynthesis in the Precambrian. This is not the same thing as evidence that these photosynthetic plants were or produced Precambrian angiosperms. You are assuming that this is the case.

2. We know that major extinction events occur. This is not the same thing as evidence that angiosperms evolved and went extinct in the Precambrian. You are assuming this happened.

3. You have asserted that because photosynthesising plants existed 700 million years ago that the entire suite of angiosperm traits could have evolved. You are assuming this actually did happen without any evidence that it happened.

Secondly, you are claiming that there is no evidence that supports the belief that plants/angiosperms might have been present before the Cambrian explosion. That is simply not true.

Incorrect. I'm not claiming that there is no evidence to support the idea that angiosperms might have been present in the Precambrian. I agree it might have happened. My argument is that your conclusion that it did happen requires a number of assumptions that make it less parsimonious than the conclusion that angiosperms evolved only once. This mainstream conclusion is based on only one assumption, i.e. that angiosperms evolved roughly where their fossil record and molecular clocks agree they did. This assumption is supported by the consilience between the fossil record and molecular clocks. As far as I can tell your assumptions have no such support. You start with chemical evidence of photosynthetic plants and then add the above-listed assumptions to conclude that angiosperms existed in the Precambrian. Please feel free to list the assumptions I've missed.

It was once believed that the early earth was a barren and had no plant life, but now scientists know that is not the case. They have found evidence that shows that oxygen was in the atmosphere in levels that are too high for just regular chemical reactions and that it must have been biological. They also claim: "The fact oxygen is there requires oxygenic photosynthesis, a very complex metabolic pathway, very early in Earth's history," said researcher Sean Crowe, a biogeochemist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. "That tells us it doesn't take long for biology to evolve very complex metabolic capabilities."

Future research can look for similarly aged rocks from other places, both on and outside Earth, to confirm these findings. "Research could also look at earlier rocks," Crowe said. "Chances are, if there was oxygen 3 billion years ago, there was likely oxygen production some time before as well. How far back does it go?"

http://www.livescience.com/39938-earth-had-oxygen-earlier.html

We also know that other evidence, molecular clocks using modern plants show that they go back 700 million years.

Plants colonised land hundreds of millions of years earlier than the fossil record suggests, according to scientists in North America.

Genetic evidence gleaned from living species puts the date when land plants first evolved at about 700 million years ago.

If their data are correct, green plants would have been growing on land well before the sudden appearance of many new species of animals that occurred about 530 million years ago, an event called the Cambrian Explosion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/1482382.stm

All this supports the conclusion that land plants existed in the Precambrian. The existence of Precambrian angiosperms is theoretically possible but is founded on several assumptions that are not supported by anything other than this chemical evidence of Precambrian photosynthesis, a process which is not at all unique to angiosperms.

I just provided evidence to support my position that is based on several different criteria. What are you basing your on? Rare fossilization. Yes, that happens and supports my position. Limited area? Why and isn't there any other evidence to support it? You are explaining why there isn't evidence, where I am giving evidence to support my position. Do you see the difference now?

Which supports my position and mine includes actual evidence rather than a lack of evidence.

You haven't really, as I've argued above. You're "evidence" for Precambrian angiosperms is exactly the same as my "evidence" for Paleozoic horses.
Photosynthetic plants existed in the Precambrian, tetrapods existed in the Paleozoic.
Therefore it is possible that angiosperms evolved in the Precambrian and horses evolved in the Paleozoic. You tried to differentiate between these two positions by invoking an incomplete fossil record and large extinction events, but as I've shown these also apply to my Paleozoic horses. So again, what is the difference between the following two arguments:

Your angiosperm argument:

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.

Yes I have. At the time this passage is addressing there were no dino's or whales or even octopuses.

You are trying to support the accuracy of Genesis by arguing that Genesis is not saying that all sea creatures were created at once. You can't do this by simply asserting that it is talking about the Cambrian fauna. I'm asking you to explain why "every living thing" in the water should not be taken to mean "every living thing" in the water. All you've given me is the assertion that it should not be because it is referring to the Cambrian fauna. You haven't made any argument to support this interpretation.

So, to be perfectly clear, what is your argument for asserting that "every living thing" in the water should be taken to mean the Cambrian fauna and not every living thing in the water?

How can you say it isn't supported by scripture? It is Scripture we are discussing.

What basis are you refusing to consider my timeline? The passages fit with scientific evidence and are in chronological order in the same way our evidence records.

I'm asking for something in the scripture that supports your interpretation of the scripture. All you've given me so far is the assertion that Genesis is referring to the Cambrian fauna. I'm not refusing to consider your timeline, I'm asking you to provide evidence from scripture that the timeline you describe is actually the intent of the author.

Edit: If Genesis really is just giving a general overview of the order in which life arose, why do you think the author makes a point of saying there was a morning and an evening between each day?

Also, I'm still waiting on that article you mentioned that argues that angiosperms evolved twice.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So here is the sequence as I see it.
1. You claim God made the universe (specifically on such a way that his truth is manifest to all)
2. I ask you what evidence you have that God is necessary as an explanation for the universe.
3. You respond with a) a reference to the fine tuning argument (absolu legit response that we should investigate) and b) by asking me what evidence I have that an invisible magic being is not necessary for universe generation.

Ok.

I would say that we don't seem to need to posit God to explain most things. I don't think I have any hard evidence that could completely take God out of the set of possibilities. As an example we used to think gods made the lightning,now we know better but a believer in those particular gods could just say "yup the science is correct, that is how God chose to create lightning". So even if we do filing d a mechanism for generating universes, you will still be ae to say..."wow isn't God amazing, that he created such a cool mechanism to make his universe ".
So I admit I can't disprove God made the universe. On the flip side you can't seem to prove he did do it either, so I guess we should both just be willing to say. We don't know how it happened and leave it at that. Or you could make your case for proving God did it of course.

I agree that we can't prove either position. If we were to go on with this in another conversation we could get deeper into it.

I tell my students this all the time.

Students? You are a teacher? You discuss God in your classes?

Really? Shoot I could have sworn we were taking about life. The dangers of long posts I guess. Could you ask your question again for me so I can answer you properly. Sorry

We were talking about the need for God in creating the universe and you said that chance and circumstance seemed a logical explanation. I asked what evidence you felt provided support to it being chance and circumstance creating it and you answered with how chance and circumstance in evolution shows how life could be created. So we were not talking about life.

The sequence was:
1. You claimed you had disproved all other possible hypotheses.
2. I offered the ed hypothesis.
3. Instead of demonstrateing that you could disprove it as you originally claimed, you have responded by asking me to prove it.

You are mistaken I believe. I did not claim that I had disproved all other possible hypotheses.

If you can't disprove the ed hypothesis then you are simply not justified in claiming that you have defeated all the other possibilities. Again all it would take is one teeny, tiny bit of counterfactual evidence that the ed hypothesis could not account for and you can claim victory

Which was not my claim...

See above

It was your claim that Ed was a possible alternative. It is up to you to show how it is a possible alternative.

I would say they are properly basic facts.

That says what they are not how they exist.

I don't mind being reigned in

If I assumed things it was not my intent. The way I read you response was that 1.you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, the first people, made by God.

No, I believe they were the first people with a spiritual soul.

2. Even though the science shows that mitochondrial Adam and Eve might or my not have overlapped, you said it was interesting that all of humanity descended from this pair. This statement, coupled with your belief in genesis would imply that you are assuming that they did live at the same time and were the original humans, ancestors to all.
If that is not your view then I apologize, please correct me

Let me clarify for you then. I asked you about the possibility of a set of humans being ancestors to all. It may be that they were alive at the same time, or not, but the fact that two humans were responsible for all modern humans is consistent with Genesis and should be rather surprising to unbelievers I would think

If that is your view, then it is simply unsupported by the science. At best it seems the science says, it is possible that the most recent common female and male ancestor of all current humans, coexisted. This is a long way from a confirmation of the Adam and Eve story. Agreed?

A long way from confirmation of Adam and Eve? How is it a long way from it?

Cough cough... Rubs eyes to clear smoke only to find them blocked by planks of wood... How did those get in there he wonders.
As I said above feel free to set up the non straw man and I will repspond to that.

I posted: 1. I never claimed that ME was the first female human. 2. I didn't focus on "this small part of science" you just have assumed this and then accused me of ignoring the rest of the data. 3. Then you ask me to address my objections of all the "relevant experts". This itself shows it was a straw man. I did clarify above though.

Ah, so we are back to the free will defence. On this thread you have said that God does override free will to make his plans work out and that taking babies before they can make free will choices is justified. How then can you say that free will is so important to God? Was God not good for allowing evil? Exactly. I would say no. When you give the toddler a sharp knife so that he gets the chance to have free will about staying himself or others, you are not a good parent. It is even worse though because as human parents we can honestly say that we didn't know kw the future, we didn't know what he would do with that knife. God on the other hand k own exactly what is going to happen. So no God is not good for creating and allowing evil.

How important would free need to be for God not to use it for His purposes?
I have told you how I justify my beliefs on the subject. We disagree. You have given good reasons for why you think God is not good in your estimation. However, you can't know that there is no possible reason for the best of mankind for allowing this evil we see. Saying that, we do see evil. We know that evil does exist. How do you explain that evil exists if God doesn't? If we are looking at a totally natural arising world, how does evil exist? How would we know God was good without knowing what was really bad?

I am puzzled by this. You seem to be arguing that the label of, to choose an example, murder, is wrong. But that over time the human definition of murder changes. I completely agree. As our morality changes and shifts we change the meaning a of those labels. This shows that there was never any truly objective moral standard to begin with.

But murder is still the objective wrong. No one believes that torturing, raping and murdering a child is wrong in any culture at any time. That is an objective wrong. Do you disagree?

This is your claim not mine In response to my objections about gods goodness you claimed that he could not create us without the desire to sin. How do you know this to be true?

Actually you made the claim that He could create us without the desire to sin. I've given you reasons why I don't agree but so far you haven't given me anything to show this might be true.

It means that those who are on his predestined list come from different parts of the planet, and that some people who are looked at as powerful and as leaders here on earth will find themselves among the least in heaven.

I don't see how this contradicts my very clear demonstration that Jesus himself said many will end up in hell and only a few will find the way to life and heaven.

Looking forward to seeing your case for this. Remember if you do conceed that my reading of Jesus is correct that the next step is to explain why it is a good plan to send most of your image bearers to an eternal punishment that you didn't even build for them (oops, sorry guys, didn't see that coming... Even though I know the future).

I agree that you are correct with what Jesus said. You haven't shown that free will is not free will. You've shown that some wills have been used for God's purposes but that is a few cases and doesn't eliminate free will as a whole and we don't really know if their free will was altered, we only know that the free will was stopped.

That was great info and very well done. I just pointed out that it doesn't agree with what Jesus said. You also added in some hypothetical saved numbers but that is fair enough on your world view.

We know that Children go to heaven and we know that throughout history nearly half of the population dies before the age of five. That is a lot of people in heaven. So how many is many and how few are few? Maybe to Jesus few is because He wants as many as have lived to be in the count but they are not.

I'm glasshouse they to be a good parent. Does this mean you agree that God doesn't seem to act in a way that you would call good.

I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Could you reword it perhaps?

Wait a minute, you are saying that if anyone breaks a command of God (in other words, sins) then it proves they never believed God to begin with? Have you ever sinned knowingly against God?

No, I don't even know how you arrived at this conclusion. Oh went back and looked at what this was about. No, they were under the law. We are not.

I think Christians were telling thier own story to make it seem like they were a continuation of the Jewish tradition. The OT seems to disagree, it want belief in a coming messiah that cleansed your sins. It was animal sacrifice.

Could you flesh this out a bit more please. I want to understand your thinking here.

Wait... Are you saying that God has predestined some people to go to heaven and even knows who they are. That he also knows the future and knows who will not be saved... But that he could be mistaken about this. That those he knew would not be saved, might acutely end up saved?

No, I am saying they actually had a choice.

It might be but please explain how it is a strawman, or conceed that God is not so good I guess

For one thing God didn't leave anyone without love. God didn't only love one people.

Darn have to take a break. Will finish this late tonight.... OK I have a few minutes here...


This is a decent summary I guess. I am saying that God does all these things that we would call horrendous if any human leader were to do them and your response is, God has given me a personal experience that he is good and trustworthy.
My follow up would be, doesn't that sound a bit like the gangster who commits horrible crimes but then goes home to his family and is a great and loving father?

You are equating God with humans again.

Did you just call me Satan?

No....
But seriously how is my solution not a better one, or failing that, how is it inconsistent with God?[/Quote]You haven't shown how this could be accomplished.

This is not evidence. You claimed that it is possible that God killed all those people because he knew they were going to be mass murderers. Saying that we have two non-killed examples of mass murderers does not support that point in any way. All you are showing is the in those instances God chose not to kill people who would become mass murderers.

The point was that we do know that even one person can kill millions. That is evidence that supports my position. The fact that they were not killed was support to my other position that we are under grace and God is allowing all evil until the end of days.

So predestination is a real thing? God chose ahead of time who he would save? Of God chose you ahead of time to be saved could you free will chose not to?

I don't believe it is predestination across the board. There is both, predestination and free choice.

So he told them that while they were sining, as long as they did it a certain way it was acceptable to him?

Where does it say that it was acceptable to Him?

Free man scenario:
Non slave argues with another man
Gets hurt, doesn't die.
Consequences: aggressor must pay for the time it takes him to recover.
Note: if he dies as a result of the assault there is a more severe punishment (I don't have the text in front of me but I think it is death right?)

Slave scenarios:

Slave gets a beating
Is injured badly but doesn't die
Punishment... Nothing (not even a requirement to rest him and compensate him while he recovers as was the case for the free man ablve)

Slave gets a beating
Dies within 48 hours - will be avenged (death penalty?)

Slave gets a beating
Dies 55 hours later as a result of internal injuries.
Punishment... Nothing (the salve is property)

So pretty sure these are not equal. Would you want to be a slave under this system? And even if you think (despite all the evidence) that these are equal treatment, do you agree with God that it is OK to own other humans as property as long as you treat them within the rules He described and I have explained for you above?

Again, where does it say that God said it was ok to own other humans?

Ok, I don't think you use those terms the way most philosophers do but now that I know what you are talking about can you give me an example of an Absolute moral?

Absolute morality is perfect morality.

Sorry it will have to wait a bit. No time tonight

Ok.

 

[Athée]

I agree that we can't prove either position. If we were to go on with this in another conversation we could get deeper into it

OK add it to the list I guess.

Students? You are a teacher? You discuss God in your classes?

I don't talk about God to my students because it is against the law to do so, be it for or against the God hypothesis.

We were talking about the need for God in creating the universe and you said that chance and circumstance seemed a logical explanation. I asked what evidence you felt provided support to it being chance and circumstance creating it and you answered with how chance and circumstance in evolution shows how life could be created. So we were not talking about life.

Hmmm. Evidence for chance... I think I probably beg the question on this one. The evidence we have doesn't seem to require a supernatural being, that said we do have some big unanswered questions. I just don't see why any if what we observe requires a God and so the parsimonious (see what I did there) choice is to not assume that there must be one for some reason.

You are mistaken I believe. I did not claim that I had disproved all other possible hypotheses.

Well I guess we have at least one example of a belief you hold being incorrect

Me: "That said, the question I actually asked you to respond to was how have you ruled out all other possible explanations to conclude that your explanation is necessary and not simply sufficient. How have you done this?"

You:
I have. The only one that even remotely comes close to explaining life without God (and only for life on earth)is an intelligence outside of our own solar system such as a superior alien existence.

No, I believe they were the first people with a spiritual soul.

Fair enough, my apologies for assuming. This means though, I assume , that you don't believe the account in genesis is correct. The Bible says God made Adam and then Eve as the first people. Adam was made from dirt and Eve from his rib. How do you reconcile this with your idea that they were the first pair with souls and therefore had physical parents who would have birthed them?

It may be that they were alive at the same time, or not, but the fact that two humans were responsible for all modern humans is consistent with Genesis and should be rather surprising to unbelievers I would think

I think this is probably true since most people do T tend to think about such things. I think it also depends on how you phrase it. If you said all humans are descendants of a single pair of human beings, this would be surprising and definitely lead towards an Adam and Eve way of thinking. If you said, on the other hand, isn't it cool that science can trace human genetics back to one man and one woman, not a couple living at the same time necessarily but thier genetic lineages are the ones that won out over time... It isn't nearly so provocative.

A long way from confirmation of Adam and Eve? How is it a long way from it?

I guess it isn't that far on your assumption that Adam and Eve were a pair somewhere in the middle of the evolution process. Which raises so many questions in itself!

This itself shows it was a straw man. I did clarify above though.

Sure did

How important would free need to be for God not to use it for His purposes?

This is a good question. It seems to me that modern Christianity is based on this idea that we are saved by making a choice to believe in Jesus. Since free will is essential to choice I would have to guess that if God was willing to put eternal souls in the balance and make them depend on a mechanism of choice, that free will would be pretty important.

You have given good reasons for why you think God is not good in your estimation. However, you can't know that there is no possible reason for the best of mankind for allowing this evil we see.

So you agree that the circumstantial evidence is that God is not good but to you the fact that I can't prove absolutely that there is no possible morally sufficient for a God to do these things, means you are justified in believing that there must be a good reason?

Saying that, we do see evil. We know that evil does exist. How do you explain that evil exists if God doesn't? If we are looking at a totally natural arising world, how does evil exist? How would we know God was good without knowing what was really bad?

Again I don't believe in EVIL, I would say that the reason we see harm is because we are all animals, descendants of animals, in a world where surviving means consuming. It's not evil that lions eat zebras it's just how life evolved. It's not evil that humans are competitive and selfish sometimes, it's just evolution. Likewise it's not surprising that a week, shortsighted, soft, practically deaf species would learn to cooperate to survive the toothier, faster animals around them. Where is the need for God in any of this? Why would a God make a system that depends on animal and human suffering and death?

But murder is still the objective wrong. No one believes that torturing, raping and murdering a child is wrong in any culture at any time. That is an objective wrong. Do you disagree?

I think you meant the opposite That said I'm not actually sure you are correct there. I believe there are cultures that have ritually sacrificed children, others that have seen sex with minors as acceptable. Do I think that these things are wrong... Feel free to get offended but I would say it depends. I could imagine a situation where doing that would be the morally correct action. It would be horrific to be sure, would traumatize me beyond measure to do these things but it could still be the most moral action. For example of given the choice between torturing, raping and murdering one child or having thousands suffer that fate it would be the most moral action (note this is different from me saying it is good or ok) available at that moment.

Actually you made the claim that He could create us without the desire to sin. I've given you reasons why I don't agree but so far you haven't given me anything to show this might be true.

I think we may be at an impasse. You keep saying that he can't create us that way and have offered some reasons that don't seem to prove your point. On the other hand I'm not sure how I am expected to prove that a magical being I don't believe in is able to do something a specific way. All I can say is that he made angles to not sin so the proof of concept is there.

I agree that you are correct with what Jesus said. You haven't shown that free will is not free will.

I agree that free will is in fact free will... How does this have anything to do with Jesus saying many end up in hell and few in heaven?

You've shown that some wills have been used for God's purposes but that is a few cases and doesn't eliminate free will as a whole and we don't really know if their free will was altered, we only know that the free will was stopped.

I think we do know that it was altered. If they were going to choose according to God's plan in the first place, God wouldn't need to intervene. Moreover, taking any possible choice away seems a clear violation of free will.

We know that Children go to heaven and we know that throughout history nearly half of the population dies before the age of five. That is a lot of people in heaven. So how many is many and how few are few? Maybe to Jesus few is because He wants as many as have lived to be in the count but they are not.

Well we don't know that children go to heaven, some denominations believe that but others don't (even though apparently the same holy spirit is indwelling and teaching them all).
To the point about many and few I feel like you are stretching quite a bit. Let's say I am talking about a cart of apples and I say to you. Behold many of them are red but a few are green. Would you agree that at the very minimum 51 percent of the apples in that cart are red? Jesus is talking about who goes to heaven and who does not, this means he is talking about all people one way or the other. Many people go to hell and few go to heaven. Seems pretty clear to me.

I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Could you reword it perhaps?

Lol. That was terrible! All I was saying is that I am glad you try to be a good parent

No, I don't even know how you arrived at this conclusion. Oh went back and looked at what this was about. No, they were under the law. We are not.

Well that's not quite true. In Matthew Jesus says that you should still obey all the commands of the law and teach others to do likewise. He does add though, because of the new covenant, that breaking theseaws is no longer a sin that gets you sent to hell, because he covers for it but if you do them or teach others to do likewise you will be least in the Kingdom of heaven. So Jesus says follow the laws. You don't have to listen to him and I assume you don't (eg you probably wear mixed fabrics) but he did say it according to your belief in the Bible.

Could you flesh this out a bit more please. I want to understand your thinking here.

Just that in the OT the Israelites did belief that a messiah would come but that this belief is not what cleansed them from sin. At the passover God didn't say believe in the coming messiah really hard and my spirit of death will passover you. He said sacrifice an animal so that the spirit will pass over you. God tells them how to atone for thier sins, it is not belief but ritual sacrifices. Later Christians come along and say that all those sacrifices were actually looking forward to the ultimate sacrifice etc, but that is not what Yahweh told the Israelites.

No, I am saying they actually had a choice.

How did they have a meaningful choice if God has chosen them ahead of time to be saved? You said earlier that when God hardened the pharaohs heart that pharaoh could not have chosen differently in that moment. Do you think that even though God has predestined someone to be saved that person could still chose not to be saved?

For one thing God didn't leave anyone without love. God didn't only love one people.

But he did initially. He specifically chose the Israelites and only them.

“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 7:6-8 ESV
http://bible.com/59/deu.7.6-8.ESV

You are equating God with humans again.

I am I guess so you are saying that it is not OK for a human to act like a gangster but it is OK for God to do the exact same kinds of things because he might have a good reason even if you can't think of one and because I can't prove that he couldn't possibly have any good reason... Seems like a pretty weak attempt to maintain your belief that this being is good despite all the actual evidence to the contrary.

You haven't shown how this could be accomplished.

He uses his power to make that world which is habitable and transports them there with his God power.

The point was that we do know that even one person can kill millions. That is evidence that supports my position.

No it really does not. You are saying that because 1 person can kill millions that it is therefore probable that God had to kill all thoes babies because they would grow up to do similar things. First that seems very unlikely, second God could avoid this without killing them, third by your logic he should have killed Hitler too.

The fact that they were not killed was support to my other position that we are under grace and God is allowing all evil until the end of days.

But he allowed it in the old Testament times too...

I don't believe it is predestination across the board. There is both, predestination and free choice.

Please explain for the case of salvation specifically. The Bible teaches that God predestined certificate elect to be saved to heaven. How is that compatible with free will as it relates to choosing salvation?

Where does it say that it was acceptable to Him?

I guess it doesn't. My mistake.

Again, where does it say that God said it was ok to own other humans?

Well in the passage we have been discussing he described slaves as property which is why they didn't get the same consideration as humans not owned as property. He also says that you can pass slaves on to your children as inheritance, although that is only for non Hebrew slaves. The good news if you own a fellow Hebrew as a slave is that of you have that salve a wife (not a choice for the women but the master chose to give her as a wife to his slave) and they have kids you can keep the wife and kids and if the man wants to stay with his family he has to become your property for life!


Edit: you are so good at shifting the subject (often to a related point, to be fair) that I almost didn't notice!
I forgot to point out that asking me about God condoning owning people as property in no way adresses the topic we were discussing. You had said that the slave and the free man get treated the same. Since you didn't respond to this should I take it we are agreed that this is not the case? The follow up of course was, do you agree with God that it is OK to treat humans this way? Remember my broken leg example, under the law proclaimed by God himself it is OK to break a slaves leg (as long as the slave doesn't die within 48 hours of course) and there will be no consequence

Absolute morality is perfect morality.

That's wonderful but could you give me an example of an absolute moral.

 

[Davian]

He could have been either.

That does not make sense. When you "asked", God was either real or fictional to you. If you considered it fictional, why would you have 'asked'?

 

[Oncedeceived]

There could be a revelation coming, it's true. But it doesn't really deal with the issue that a whole bunch of people with attitudes similar to mine die and are damned because they never got the kind of sign we're talking about.

I leave that up to God. I really believe that if someone is really sincere then God will reveal Himself to them.

I regularly take the Lord's name in vain. I hear that one's a big deal, but it's hard to take it seriously without already believing there is a Lord. Does this mean I have chosen to be fooled by Satan?

Respect for God is a very important element in the God and human relationship. I guess I would say that if you are sincere in respect to knowing the truth, if you are really sincere in worshiping God and in wanting him to give you this sign you have asked for; doesn't it seem somewhat counter intuitive to use God's name in a way that He feels is profane and disrespectful? Granted without knowing He does exist might seem like a good reason to go on and live as if He doesn't but not if you really want to know the truth.

Sorry, I got my lines mixed up. What I meant was, why is everything up until the end of line 26 talking about the Second coming but line 27 is suddenly talking about something completely different with no transition of any sort in between? You say 26 is about the Second coming whereas 27 refers to the Transfiguration, but there is nothing in either line that indicates a change in subject.

You might not understand the way ancient Greek was written and that might help to see why this is not an issue. Ancient Greek had no punctuation nor spaces between words and did not have paragraphs the way we do today. The fact that the transfiguration comes immediately after the saying of Jesus and that the next line even links them together by saying: Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.… Now this is a separate chapter in Matthew but that is not the case with Mark as Mark has it coming in the same chapter and running right after without pause which shows that I have support of this being more a case of the way it is written.

We know this goes together because Mark and Luke both have this same run down of the events:

1And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."2Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them;3and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.…

Could you quote me some examples where Jesus refers to something a few days away as if it were going to take place a long time in the future?

You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.29"Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.…

He dies but comes back to them not in the second coming but right after He is killed.

In Luke 21 Jesus says the same thing and you agree that there he is referring to Judgement Day. He is saying that this set of people will still be alive when he returns. So if his lack of knowledge about the exact date of his return means that Luke 9:27 can't be referring to the Return, then Luke 21:32 can't be referring to it either. But you agree that it is.

Luke 21 is about the end times. Luke 9:27 is talking about the transfiguration.

The oldest verified person was 122 years old. Someone born the same day as Israel would be 68. So in 56 years everyone who witnessed the birth of Israel will probably be dead. This means that there is a chance that I will still be alive to see that you are wrong about the return of Jesus! Also, is this interpretation just that, or is it one of those God-given thoughts?

Yes, you will be alive to see if I am right or wrong about the return of Jesus. Remember no one knows the day or hour but we after seeing the signs told about that we should know the season. It is generally believed that what we are seeing happening in the world today fits with those signs. It is both through interpretation and God's instruction.

So my idea is, as far as you are able to argue, a workable proposition. That's the point. God can and does override free will, so he could have done it that way and saved a whole bunch of souls that would otherwise be damned. You assume he has a good reason for damning all those souls, but you have only your faith that God is as good as you think he is. To me it doesn't comport with any definition of good or loving I know of.

I have good reason to believe that there is choice and choice is important to God. He can override free will if He wishes but that doesn't mean He wishes to as a whole.

Really? Even if you knew your child would be truly dead (and let's say damned) for believing a stupid thing that prevented them from taking an easy, life-saving solution, you still would maybe let them die? As I said before, a very disturbing attitude. Call me arrogant, but I just can't imagine letting someone I loved kill themselves by doing something so unbelievably stupid when I had the power to intervene. I don't care if I have the right to or not. I would rather my wife leave me and hate me than have her dead because she believed something stupid.

I suppose that I would agree with that. But that isn't what we are talking about now are we?

Ignore the faeries then. The lack of evidence for the existence of X cannot seriously be considered to support an inference that X existed but was wiped out, correct? If you disagree, please explain.

I'm not committed to the idea, so it isn't worth arguing about.

You're still talking about an entire nation that would have still been evil even if the young were transplanted to a different cultural context in which baby sacrifice was not okay. No such inevitably evil population has ever been shown to exist.

It was written that the children would lead Israel astray, so if God is truly all knowing, He would know this.

We were discussing the utility of faith versus science in approaching truth. With that in mind, here's the excerpt again: You believe that your god has a good reason for apparent atrocities even if you can't think of one that comports with external evidence. That's in contrast to science wherein conclusions must comport with evidence external to your own beliefs on the subject.

Yet, we know that even with external evidence to one's belief using Science we know that very often science is wrong, so while science is a method that points us to the truth it is wrong many times along the way.

Jesus was fully man, correct? But he was also sinless. Thus being created does not exclude a sinless nature. If "I don't know" is the best response you have for this, then you aren't justified in asserting that a created being can't be sinless.

Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. Now if you understand how that works you let me know. He is still God we are not so His existence as man/God does not provide proof that we as 100% human without the 100% God have the ability to be sinless.

Putting it simply will not do. You are simply asserting your position, not supporting it. I would appreciate you actually addressing the argument I make here:

Your support for omniscience being necessary for sinlessness doesn't fit with your statement that God's sinlessness an attribute of his nature, not something that comes from his nature. If omniscience is a prerequisite for sinlessness, that means sinlessness is something God does by exerting his omniscience to avoid ever doing anything that would affect others in such a way that his actions could be sinful. Sinlessness is thus something that God does rather than something he is. If you disagree, please explain in detail why.

If you don't feel like it or can't, then you are not justified in asserting that sinlessness requires omniscience.

Omniscience is what God is. Can we be Omniscience? My point is that we are not God, we can't be God. Do you disagree that we are not God? Do you disagree that we can't be God. The only Being that is sinless by nature is God. We do not share the nature of God. Do you disagree that we do not share the nature of God? I don't think addressing a self evident fact is asserting anything. It is a fact that we are not God, do not share the nature of God and we can't ever become God. IF you disagree, please explain.

I don't think they are contradictory. I do however think that punishing your child forever for doing something you knew they were going to do from the beginning is antithetical to love. When you punish your child it is because you are trying to teach them something for their own good. Killing an entire planet and damning their souls irrevocably does not serve this purpose because those that were punished have no opportunity to change their behaviour. This is more like beating the s*** out of one child as a warning to your other child. Does that seem loving?

You continue to ignore that all that is needed is to accept a gift of salvation. It is easy to understand, easy to do and very much rewarding when done.

Now you think the behavior of God is unloving and cruel. I disagree and justify it by my own personal experience of God, knowing that God says that He does what He does for the greatest good. I believe Him. Now I understand that you have nothing to go on but your own experience and you think you have no reason to believe Him. Do you think that if God really exists as is written in the Bible that there is no possible reason that makes these actions actually good like He claims there is?

I asked if God knows what we will do before we begin to exist, for is he not omniscient? You answered that you didn't know. I took this to mean that you are unsure as to whether God knows everything we will do before we begin to exist. If he doesn't know this then definitionally he can't be omniscient. I always do my best to understand my interlocutor's position. If you think I have misrepresented it then please correct me.

That's fair. It is a correct point to an inconsistency of my thoughts. I would have to say that yes, God would know what each created being would do before creating them. I don't think however, that knowing what one will do is the same as determining what they will do.

No, none of that is my point. And you have not answered the question I have asked you many times now. I will restate my point and my question and hope that you have the courtesy to finally answer it.

My point with this baby-killing/free will thing is that God is willing to subvert free will to serve his purposes. You don't seem to agree that killing babies before they make their free will choice violates their free will. So...

If free will in this context is making a choice for or against God, why does it not violate free will to take that choice away?

If I were deciding who to vote in an election and I hadn't yet made a choice it would be a violation of my right to choose if one of the candidates were to cast my vote for me.

I do agree that God will manipulate the circumstances to use a person's will for His own purposes. In the case of the babies, He shortens their lives and in doing so diverts judgement for some and quicker reward for others.

I don't think you've quite grasped what parsimony means. It doesn't mean "consistent with evidence", which is what you seem to be saying when you wrote that your conclusions are "very parsimonious with that evidence". Parsimony is a way of choosing between different options that are consistent with the evidence by choosing the option that relies on the fewest assumptions.

1. You have data that indicate plants were capable of photosynthesis in the Precambrian. This is not the same thing as evidence that these photosynthetic plants were or produced Precambrian angiosperms. You are assuming that this is the case.

2. We know that major extinction events occur. This is not the same thing as evidence that angiosperms evolved and went extinct in the Precambrian. You are assuming this happened.

3. You have asserted that because photosynthesising plants existed 700 million years ago that the entire suite of angiosperm traits could have evolved. You are assuming this actually did happen without any evidence that it happened.

The key here is could have. I really want you to think about what you are saying here. You are telling me that I am "asserting" that angiosperms were present. I am saying that the evidence that plants were present millions and millions of years prior to any fossil record for them. Now we know that science works upon less many times when researching different evidences to support a certain hypothesis. It was very recently that it was thought that no life could exist on early earth and that plant life could not have existed at all this early. Back ten years ago, there was no evidence whatsoever that plants existed during the Precambrian at all. Now we know they existed and there is nothing that would prohibit angiosperms from being present at that time. We know of organisms evolving more than once. We have evidence for organisms going extinct. Now tell me, knowing we have examples of all of this how my claiming that this could have possibly happened is unscientific and unsupported in evolutionary history?

Incorrect. I'm not claiming that there is no evidence to support the idea that angiosperms might have been present in the Precambrian. I agree it might have happened. My argument is that your conclusion that it did happen requires a number of assumptions that make it less parsimonious than the conclusion that angiosperms evolved only once. This mainstream conclusion is based on only one assumption, i.e. that angiosperms evolved roughly where their fossil record and molecular clocks agree they did. This assumption is supported by the consilience between the fossil record and molecular clocks. As far as I can tell your assumptions have no such support.

That simply is false. The origins of angiosperms and its controversy still exists today. The molecular and fossil evidence do not agree. I don't understand knowing you are very well versed on evolution why you are presenting your argument as if angiosperms origins is conclusive and no controversy exists as to when they did arise. We know that angiosperms appear very suddenly in the fossil record too. We also know that there have been I believe like five extinction events that we know of that have had great impact on the plant kingdom. So I think that your assertion that there is only one assumption that angiosperms evolved roughly where their fossil record exists and that the Molecular clocks agree is false. Pollen grains found in Switzerland in 2013 show them present 240 million years ago. Which then pushed back the origins even farther than that. So your one assumption is just that and has proven to be incorrect as well. My position is supported by very early plant life in the Precambrian due to oxygen levels, genetic studies that support plant life was likely responsible for the Cambrian explosion and the unknown origins of angiosperms all are more than assertion and do support the plausibility of a long period of plant evolution and the likelihood of that evolution giving rise to angiosperms from early plant life as has been proposed previously. Add to that, we know that extinction events have affected plant life at least five times and that features can and do evolve more than once independently. My position is well supported where as yours...fossil evidence/molecular clocks are known to be incorrect as to the origin of plant life and its molecular clocks.

You start with chemical evidence of photosynthetic plants and then add the above-listed assumptions to conclude that angiosperms existed in the Precambrian. Please feel free to list the assumptions I've missed.

All this supports the conclusion that land plants existed in the Precambrian. The existence of Precambrian angiosperms is theoretically possible but is founded on several assumptions that are not supported by anything other than this chemical evidence of Precambrian photosynthesis, a process which is not at all unique to angiosperms.

See above.

You haven't really, as I've argued above. You're "evidence" for Precambrian angiosperms is exactly the same as my "evidence" for Paleozoic horses.
Photosynthetic plants existed in the Precambrian, tetrapods existed in the Paleozoic.
Therefore it is possible that angiosperms evolved in the Precambrian and horses evolved in the Paleozoic. You tried to differentiate between these two positions by invoking an incomplete fossil record and large extinction events, but as I've shown these also apply to my Paleozoic horses. So again, what is the difference between the following two arguments:

Your angiosperm argument:

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.

See above.

You are trying to support the accuracy of Genesis by arguing that Genesis is not saying that all sea creatures were created at once. You can't do this by simply asserting that it is talking about the Cambrian fauna. I'm asking you to explain why "every living thing" in the water should not be taken to mean "every living thing" in the water. All you've given me is the assertion that it should not be because it is referring to the Cambrian fauna. You haven't made any argument to support this interpretation.

So, to be perfectly clear, what is your argument for asserting that "every living thing" in the water should be taken to mean the Cambrian fauna and not every living thing in the water?

I'm asking for something in the scripture that supports your interpretation of the scripture. All you've given me so far is the assertion that Genesis is referring to the Cambrian fauna. I'm not refusing to consider your timeline, I'm asking you to provide evidence from scripture that the timeline you describe is actually the intent of the author.

What in the passages prohibits my interpretation?

Edit: If Genesis really is just giving a general overview of the order in which life arose, why do you think the author makes a point of saying there was a morning and an evening between each day?

Also, I'm still waiting on that article you mentioned that argues that angiosperms evolved twice.

The week not only describes God's work but how mankind is to work. Work six days a week and rest on the seventh.

I don't remember saying I had an article that claims angiosperms evolved twice. Perhaps if you know where that is in these monstrous posts you could quote it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That does not make sense. When you "asked", God was either real or fictional to you. If you considered it fictional, why would you have 'asked'?

I said I didn't know if He was real or fictional. When I asked I asked just that: God if you are real I want to know. Show me if you exist. I didn't hold that He was real or fictional.

 

[Davian]

We are here that is very much true, but adding on to we are here and saying that we are here due to non-living matter becoming alive is not in evidence.

What other scientific options are on the table?

What evidence do you cite that shows that rather than just non-living matter interacting with non-living matter that it becomes living?

Why are you asking for something you claim does not exist? You said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim?

How is your using circumstantial evidence which you claim is for non-living matter becoming living matter not equate to hypocrisy when you are claiming that my position is only circumstantial.

I am not claiming you position (on God) has only circumstantial evidence, I am only agreeing with you that your evidence is circumstantial:

#285: "However, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence when taken as a whole to ascertain the correctness of that being the truth."

#516: "If you want to have me say that we have objective evidence that circumstantially supports God I can accept that."

and I am being hypocritical?

That you proffer circumstantial evidence for your position while claiming that it does not exist for others (not to mention failing to substantiate that claim).

 

[Davian]

I said I didn't know if He was real or fictional. When I asked I asked just that: God if you are real I want to know. Show me if you exist. I didn't hold that He was real or fictional.

There are still only two mutually exclusive options. If you had felt that God was fictional, do you think would you have made that request?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What other scientific options are on the table?

Having no other scientific options doesn't mean that the only one is correct or has evidence for it.

Why are you asking for something you claim does not exist? You said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim?

I asked if you had any evidence as I was unaware of any that provided evidence for non-living matter becoming living matter.

I am not claiming you position (on God) has only circumstantial evidence, I am only agreeing with you that your evidence is circumstantial:

#285: "However, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence when taken as a whole to ascertain the correctness of that being the truth."

#516: "If you want to have me say that we have objective evidence that circumstantially supports God I can accept that."

That you proffer circumstantial evidence for your position while claiming that it does not exist for others (not to mention failing to substantiate that claim).

Providing physical evidence for a non-physical Being compared to physical evidence for a physical process seems obvious would require different means in which to determine it.[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are still only two mutually exclusive options. If you had felt that God was fictional, do you think would you have made that request?

Do you think if I thought He was real I would?

 

[Athée]

There are still only two mutually exclusive options. If you had felt that God was fictional, do you think would you have made that request?

Again butting in.
I'm not sure I am seeing the inconsistency in Once's position that you are trying to bring forward.
If you were to ask me, do I believe that an alien species as advanced as present day humans has or will exist in our universe I would say I don't know. The reality is that either they have or will, or that they have not and will not.
This hasn't stopped humans from sending messages out into space.
This seems fairly analogous to Once sending out a prayer to a being that might or might not exist.
She then believes that she got an answer back which is where she and I part company but I don't see that she would have to be convinced one way or the other to offer up the initial prayer.

Thoughts?

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK add it to the list I guess.

The list is going to be as long as these posts.

I don't talk about God to my students because it is against the law to do so, be it for or against the God hypothesis.

I hate to put you on the spot but how if you don't discuss God would you tell your students that God should sign his work? That aside, what do you teach?

Hmmm. Evidence for chance... I think I probably beg the question on this one. The evidence we have doesn't seem to require a supernatural being, that said we do have some big unanswered questions. I just don't see why any if what we observe requires a God and so the parsimonious (see what I did there) choice is to not assume that there must be one for some reason.

Ok, hope you will allow the same for me. However, since there are numerable unanswered questions don't you think the most parsimonious conclusion is God rather than all the unknown elements that might be needed to explain them?

Well I guess we have at least one example of a belief you hold being incorrect

Not so fast, you clearly said that I said I had disproved all other alternatives. As you see below, that is not what I said. Ruling out all possible alternatives that I am aware of, is in no way claiming that I have disproved all possibilities.

Me: "That said, the question I actually asked you to respond to was how have you ruled out all other possible explanations to conclude that your explanation is necessary and not simply sufficient. How have you done this?"

You:
I have. The only one that even remotely comes close to explaining life without God (and only for life on earth)is an intelligence outside of our own solar system such as a superior alien existence.

Ed was not an alternate possibility that I or anyone else was aware of.

Fair enough, my apologies for assuming.

Apology accepted.

This means though, I assume , that you don't believe the account in genesis is correct. The Bible says God made Adam and then Eve as the first people. Adam was made from dirt and Eve from his rib. How do you reconcile this with your idea that they were the first pair with souls and therefore had physical parents who would have birthed them?

I do believe the account is correct. What that entailed I have no clue but it doesn't say that they were the only humans. I reconcile this due to Adam was from the dust, which to me shows that He was the first human man but was brought forth and given spiritual life or a soul.

I think this is probably true since most people do T tend to think about such things. I think it also depends on how you phrase it. If you said all humans are descendants of a single pair of human beings, this would be surprising and definitely lead towards an Adam and Eve way of thinking. If you said, on the other hand, isn't it cool that science can trace human genetics back to one man and one woman, not a couple living at the same time necessarily but thier genetic lineages are the ones that won out over time... It isn't nearly so provocative.

Why would it not be remarkable that we are descendants of a single pair of humans regardless of whether or not you believe they lived at the same time?

I guess it isn't that far on your assumption that Adam and Eve were a pair somewhere in the middle of the evolution process. Which raises so many questions in itself!

I'm sure.

This is a good question. It seems to me that modern Christianity is based on this idea that we are saved by making a choice to believe in Jesus. Since free will is essential to choice I would have to guess that if God was willing to put eternal souls in the balance and make them depend on a mechanism of choice, that free will would be pretty important.

I agree so we know that if free will is so important that the reason to manipulate it must be of even more importance.

So you agree that the circumstantial evidence is that God is not good but to you the fact that I can't prove absolutely that there is no possible morally sufficient for a God to do these things, means you are justified in believing that there must be a good reason?

I believe there are things in the Bible that do not fit with our sensibilities but that yes, there must be a good reason. I can't prove it but that doesn't change the fact, that I can justify it by my own experiences and understanding of some Biblical material.

Again I don't believe in EVIL, I would say that the reason we see harm is because we are all animals, descendants of animals, in a world where surviving means consuming. It's not evil that lions eat zebras it's just how life evolved. It's not evil that humans are competitive and selfish sometimes, it's just evolution. Likewise it's not surprising that a week, shortsighted, soft, practically deaf species would learn to cooperate to survive the toothier, faster animals around them. Where is the need for God in any of this? Why would a God make a system that depends on animal and human suffering and death?

I think I've presented my position on this. It is not convincing to you and that is understandable but this all started with how did I justify it and I think I've explained as fully as I am capable. I don't find many beliefs that you hold very convincing either so I guess we're even.

I think you meant the opposite

I sure did. I keep telling myself I need to read these before posting but I always hit that post button to fast.

That said I'm not actually sure you are correct there. I believe there are cultures that have ritually sacrificed children, others that have seen sex with minors as acceptable. Do I think that these things are wrong... Feel free to get offended but I would say it depends. I could imagine a situation where doing that would be the morally correct action. It would be horrific to be sure, would traumatize me beyond measure to do these things but it could still be the most moral action. For example of given the choice between torturing, raping and murdering one child or having thousands suffer that fate it would be the most moral action (note this is different from me saying it is good or ok) available at that moment.

So your point then is that it isn't good or ok to do the most moral action but it is the best possible solution for the most good. Correct?

I think we may be at an impasse. You keep saying that he can't create us that way and have offered some reasons that don't seem to prove your point. On the other hand I'm not sure how I am expected to prove that a magical being I don't believe in is able to do something a specific way. All I can say is that he made angles to not sin so the proof of concept is there.

He didn't make angels able to not sin. They chose to not sin and other chose to sin.

I agree that free will is in fact free will... How does this have anything to do with Jesus saying many end up in hell and few in heaven?

I concede this point.

I think we do know that it was altered. If they were going to choose according to God's plan in the first place, God wouldn't need to intervene. Moreover, taking any possible choice away seems a clear violation of free will.

Intervening and subverting is not the same.

Well we don't know that children go to heaven, some denominations believe that but others don't (even though apparently the same holy spirit is indwelling and teaching them all).
To the point about many and few I feel like you are stretching quite a bit. Let's say I am talking about a cart of apples and I say to you. Behold many of them are red but a few are green. Would you agree that at the very minimum 51 percent of the apples in that cart are red? Jesus is talking about who goes to heaven and who does not, this means he is talking about all people one way or the other. Many people go to hell and few go to heaven. Seems pretty clear to me.

See above.

Lol. That was terrible! All I was saying is that I am glad you try to be a good parent

My children seem to think I am.

Well that's not quite true. In Matthew Jesus says that you should still obey all the commands of the law and teach others to do likewise. He does add though, because of the new covenant, that breaking theseaws is no longer a sin that gets you sent to hell, because he covers for it but if you do them or teach others to do likewise you will be least in the Kingdom of heaven. So Jesus says follow the laws. You don't have to listen to him and I assume you don't (eg you probably wear mixed fabrics) but he did say it according to your belief in the Bible.

Which passage are you referring to?

Just that in the OT the Israelites did belief that a messiah would come but that this belief is not what cleansed them from sin.

I agree, I didn't say that.

At the passover God didn't say believe in the coming messiah really hard and my spirit of death will passover you. He said sacrifice an animal so that the spirit will pass over you. God tells them how to atone for thier sins, it is not belief but ritual sacrifices. Later Christians come along and say that all those sacrifices were actually looking forward to the ultimate sacrifice etc, but that is not what Yahweh told the Israelites.

Which I never claimed.

How did they have a meaningful choice if God has chosen them ahead of time to be saved? You said earlier that when God hardened the pharaohs heart that pharaoh could not have chosen differently in that moment. Do you think that even though God has predestined someone to be saved that person could still chose not to be saved?

He couldn' t have chosen differently at that moment but it didn't actually subvert His will, it just changed the timing of it.

But he did initially. He specifically chose the Israelites and only them.

“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 7:6-8 ESV
http://bible.com/59/deu.7.6-8.ESV

They were the chosen people to give rise to Christ but God didn't withhold love from others.

I am I guess so you are saying that it is not OK for a human to act like a gangster but it is OK for God to do the exact same kinds of things because he might have a good reason even if you can't think of one and because I can't prove that he couldn't possibly have any good reason... Seems like a pretty weak attempt to maintain your belief that this being is good despite all the actual evidence to the contrary.

We know that you yourself understand that at times even in human terms there can be a possible reason that less harm is created if something that looks to be immoral saves great harm.

He uses his power to make that world which is habitable and transports them there with his God power.

This is still assuming there is no greater good being done.

No it really does not. You are saying that because 1 person can kill millions that it is therefore probable that God had to kill all thoes babies because they would grow up to do similar things. First that seems very unlikely, second God could avoid this without killing them, third by your logic he should have killed Hitler too.

Would you agree that according to the Bible that God is omniscient? I will assume you would agree, so if God states in the Bible that these children would do harm if allowed to live, who is better to judge that...you without being omniscient or God who is? I told you that it is not the same with Hitler. We are under grace as I said before.

But he allowed it in the old Testament times too...

Please explain for the case of salvation specifically. The Bible teaches that God predestined certificate elect to be saved to heaven. How is that compatible with free will as it relates to choosing salvation?

It seems to me right now that God knew before creating us whether or not we would be saved, so He used certain people or predestined them to be used according to His will for His purposes. So those being predestined have a certain job in God's plan and while not changing their will per se but using it for it.

I guess it doesn't. My mistake.

Thanks for being honest and admitting it.

Well in the passage we have been discussing he described slaves as property which is why they didn't get the same consideration as humans not owned as property. He also says that you can pass slaves on to your children as inheritance, although that is only for non Hebrew slaves. The good news if you own a fellow Hebrew as a slave is that of you have that salve a wife (not a choice for the women but the master chose to give her as a wife to his slave) and they have kids you can keep the wife and kids and if the man wants to stay with his family he has to become your property for life!

No where in the passages we are discussing does it say God condones the behavior. We know also that Jesus said that God allowed certain behavior even if He didn't condone it.

Edit: you are so good at shifting the subject (often to a related point, to be fair) that I almost didn't notice!

Believe me when I say that is exactly how my brain works. I don't do it to shift away from something but to add something to it.

I forgot to point out that asking me about God condoning owning people as property in no way adresses the topic we were discussing. You had said that the slave and the free man get treated the same. Since you didn't respond to this should I take it we are agreed that this is not the case? The follow up of course was, do you agree with God that it is OK to treat humans this way? Remember my broken leg example, under the law proclaimed by God himself it is OK to break a slaves leg (as long as the slave doesn't die within 48 hours of course) and there will be no consequence

But did God say it was alright to break the leg of the free man when He gave instructions for that?

That's wonderful but could you give me an example of an absolute moral.

No. There are no examples. The nature of God is the absolute moral.