Where's God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ah, diamonds, petroleum, glaciers, snowflakes and trees can all have a reduction in entropy. And none of these require human interaction.
But they require a huge increase in entropy elsewhere. Living things do not because they show evidence of design.

dm: All that is required is that we are dealing with an open system that is able to share heat and/or matter with the outside environment. If that happens, a system can decrease in entropy. And if there is a mechanism to use that decrease in entropy such that the end result is something we consider organized, then we can get things like diamonds, snowflakes, and glaciers.

You say there is a temporary huge increase in entropy involved. Flapdoodle. Please document your claim.
All of those things require a huge increase in entropy elsewhere. Petroleum and diamonds require tremendous heat and pressure to form. And snowflakes and glaciers require an compensating increase in entropy in the atmosphere. In addition, this occurs due to the forces involved and to the fact that natural systems seek the lowest energy configuration, which is a consequence of the second law. Ice crystals are just natural systems seeking the lowest energy configuration.

dm: There is nothing temporary about it. If an open system decreases in entropy, it can only do that by transferring heat and/or matter to the outside environment. When it does that, the outside environment always has a net permanent increase in entropy greater than or equal to the amount of entropy that was transferred to it from our open system.
Exactly.

dm: This permanent increase of the environmental entropy occurs regardless of whether a person is interacting with the process. People take low entropy carbon and oxygen and convert them into high entropy carbon dioxide. The increase in the universe's entropy due to the fact that you breathed out carbon dioxide is always greater than any decrease in entropy as a result of what you do.

You downplay the mechanism of molecular structure. Why doesn't that count? Again, what we see is a reduction of entropy of these open systems. It doesn't matter if the mechanism that does it is molecular processes, machines, planetary dynamics, or humans. As long is it is an open system that transfers heat and/or matter with the environment, then any number of different mechanisms can use that to create a low entropy substance.
No, see above about systems seeking the lowest energy configuration.

dm: You allow that trees and humans can cause a decrease in entropy in an open system (and I might add, they can do it only if they increase the entropy of the rest of the environment more than the local decrease.) If trees and humans can decrease entropy of an open system, why can't apes? And if apes can decrease entropy, then how exactly do the laws of thermodynamics keep them from evolving?

Because trees and humans show evidence of designed. Living things are basically machines designed to decrease entropy.

See above.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Ed1Wolf, you are still missing the basics of the laws of thermodynamics. I gave you the formula. When heat transfers from one body to another, the object transferring heat loses entropy by an amount q/T, where q is the amount of energy transferred, and T is the temperature of the hot body. The body gaining heat increases in entropy by q/T, where T is the temperature of the cold body.

When the sun transfer heat to the earth, it loses energy and entropy. The earth gains energy and entropy. Likewise when the earth transfers heat to space, the earth loses energy and entropy.

On the average, the earth gains as much energy as it loses, so we stay about the same temperature (although recent changes in atmospheric CO2 are slightly changing the energy balance).

However, earth loses entropy. The surfaces of the earth that receive heat are, on the average, hotter than the surfaces that radiate heat. Since T (temperature) is in the denominator, q/T outgoing is greater than q/T incoming, even though q in equals q out. Hence the outside universe causes the earth to decrease in entropy.

But internal processes within the earth increase the earth's entropy. The increase in entropy due to earth's processes are roughly equal to the decreases caused by the outside universe. So life goes on.

See Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (gmu.edu) .


But they require a huge increase in entropy elsewhere. Living things do not because they show evidence of design.
This is absolutely false. Every time a body decreases in entropy, someplace else in the universe must increase in entropy by at least that amount. Living things are no exception. Measure the differences in the entropy of what you take in (food, oxygen) and what you put out (waste, CO2) and you will see that the net result of food/oxygen/work/waste/CO2 is a net increase in entropy. But if you look at just the human work, and ignore everything else, well uh, that's amazing!


All of those things require a huge increase in entropy elsewhere.
So does life.
Petroleum and diamonds require tremendous heat and pressure to form.
Yep. And it is all caused by the processes described above, and by a similar process involving radioactive heat from within the earth. Hot and cold areas in the earth cause continents to move and mountains to be pushed up. Hot and cold areas in the atmosphere cause wind and water cycles that cause erosion that buries things under high pressure to form things like petroleum and diamonds.

And snowflakes and glaciers require an compensating increase in entropy in the atmosphere.
Yep. And yet the atmosphere, in turn, is able to radiate that increased entropy into outer space. As long as there is a mechanism to transfer entropy from water vapor to the atmosphere to outer space, then low entropy snow can form spontaneously.

Low entropy snow forms by itself. Unlike things you buy on Amazon, no human assembly is required.

In addition, this occurs due to the forces involved and to the fact that natural systems seek the lowest energy configuration, which is a consequence of the second law. Ice crystals are just natural systems seeking the lowest energy configuration.
Likewise proteins are the result of natural systems seeking that state which is driven by the laws of thermodynamics.


Because trees and humans show evidence of designed. Living things are basically machines designed to decrease entropy.
More correctly, they are designed to use low entropy resources like food and oxygen to drive processes that decrease entropy locally, while producing even more high entropy waste products.

None of this in any way refutes the second law of thermodynamics. None of this in any way refutes evolution. As long as the mechanism is there to utilize the high energy, low entropy source, things can happen. And that is the marvel of carbon. In the right circumstances, carbon spontaneously forms things like petroleum, diamonds, proteins, RNA, amoeba, trees, and persons.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
OK, Ed, what will it be now? Hitler, gay sex, or the Big Bang?

ed: The laws of physics breaking down is certainly not "natural" ie never been empirically observed. I am not saying it proves it is supernatural but it points in that direction.

dm: The Big Bang? Ok, lets shift modes and talk about the Big Bang.

Please tell me how you concluded that "never been empirically observed" means "supernatural".

If nobody had ever empirically observed me hit a tulip with a baseball bat, and then I do it, would that be supernatural?
Something not obeying the laws of physics is supernatural by definition.

ed: I am not saying it can prove it but using basic laws of logic we can show that the cause logically has to be supernatural.

dm: You can't prove it is supernatural but you can prove it?

Let me correct your sentence. You can't prove it; you can't prove it.
No, see above, something not obeying the laws of physics is supernatural by definition wouldnt you say?

ed: A cause cannot logically be part of the effect, it has to be "outside" it. That fits one of the characteristics of the Christian God. One of His characteristics is that He transcends the physical universe.

dm: You seem to be confusing claiming to transcend the universe and transcending the universe. Those are two different things.

If I were to claim to transcend the universe, would that claim prove I was the cause of the universe? :)
No, when studying the universe you look at the characteristics of the universe to determine its cause just like scientists do everyday. Only a being that is nonphysical can transcend a physical universe. You are a physical being thereby eliminating you as the cause of the universe. One of the characteristics of the Christian God is that He is nonphysical, thereby making Him a likely candidate.

dm: God as described in the Old Testament doesn't seem to transcend the firmament, which is a fictitious structure thought to hold stars and rainwater.
No, as I explained earlier the hebrew term translated firmament in the KJV can also mean an open expanse. See above how He is nonphysical, ie spirit.

ed: There is also evidence for the supernatural from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

dm: Mathematics can't be expressed in language, therefore God?
Words in languages can't be defined without using other words, that are defined using other words, that are defined using other words, in one big circle. You can't define a language with out being circular. Ergo God?
No, It means that in order to prove the consistency of a system such as nature, science, or mathematics, it is impossible to prove it from within the system. You must go outside the system. So for nature, you must go outside nature, ie the supernature or supernatural. Or to explain the physical you have to go to the metaphysical.

ed: One of them I mentioned above. Also, purposes exist in the universe, and we know that only persons create purposes so the cause must be personal just like the Christian God.

dm: Apes can also have purposes. Have we proven that the world was created by apes?
While apes have some simple aspects of personal beings, they dont have the full orb of personhood. So besides being physical beings which eliminates them as the cause of the universe, their other characteristics cannot explain most of the other characteristics of the universe as well as the Christian God.

ed: Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is the basic characteristic of the Triune Christian God. It is His fingerprint on the universe.
dm: When my cat vomits, there is a diversity within a unity. Ergo God? ;)
No, see above.

ed: Language exists in the universe, only the Christian God knows how to create language.

dm: Humans and dolphins have also created languages. Was the world made by dolphins? ;)
No, Chomsky and other language experts say that only the human brain has a built in grammar and
syntax abilities, that point to a primordial single language from which all others originated. Dolphins dont have a real language.

ed: It cannot be a quantum event that caused the universe to come into existence because QM requires an interval of time in order to occur but at t = 0 there is no time for it to occur.

dm: Beyond the Big Bang we don't know. It is like dividing zero by zero. The answer is undetermined. Perhaps the same basic space time exists when you go back "before" the Big Bang. Perhaps there is some other sort of space time. We don't know.
We do know by using logic, ie the law of sufficient cause. While logic does not PROVE God exists it is strong evidence for His existence.

dm: What we do know is that quantum effects are universal, even in areas of space that we consider to be "nothing". We simply do not know if quantum effects, or something like quantum effects existed before the Big Bang, but it sure seems likely.
Maybe but unlikely as i stated above, QM needs time to occur.

ed: And the fact that the universe traces backward to nothing confirms the Christian teaching that the universe was created out of nothing.

dm: Suppose that somebody had started a new religion that teaches that the world was created by doubtingmerle out of nothing. Does that make me the creator? ;)
No, see above.

ed: There is no evidence that another space and time existed prior to the BB.

dm: What we observe is that something other than the forces of our universe appear to have inflated spacetime in the first fraction of a second, and even today is inflating spacetime. This appears to not be something caused by the universe, but something "outside" it that inflates spacetime. We don't know what is doing that.
Actually we do know the probable cause of that using logic as I demonstrated above.
 
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Instead of playing Where's Waldo, let's play Where's God. In the picture below, where's God?

57638c0d-a772-4f6e-bec5-996444093956_1920x1080.jpg
The hearts of people are not known unless the people speak or act in a way that is obvious as to if God is in their heart or not.

Of those in medical garb it can be assumed that they aren't laying hands on the person and praying for that person to be healed.

I had a doctor who was a Christian. He focused on his medical knowledge to heal people because he wasn't by profession an evangelist or faith healer. He died at an old age a few months ago. Of covid-19.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Of those in medical garb it can be assumed that they aren't laying hands on the person and praying for that person to be healed.

I had a doctor who was a Christian. He focused on his medical knowledge to heal people because he wasn't by profession an evangelist or faith healer. He died at an old age a few months ago. Of covid-19.
So sorry he died. Of covid.

Had he been a faith healer, he still could have died.

Of covid.

If the folks in the picture abandoned medicine to go solely on faith, I fear that man would also die.

Of covid.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, just as there are intermediate steps in the production and creation of a baby where the initial cause (the parent) is not directly involved so also there may be intermediate steps in the production of humans where the initial cause, God, is not directly involved like evolution.
Sure, if God exists. Since you haven't yet proved this, your argument collapses. You are trying to prove God's existence by with an argument that asks us to assume that God exists. This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.

Nevertheless in both cases the ultimate cause is a personal being.
Prove it. Because if you don't have proof for what you're saying, it's nothing but an empty claim.
We know how humans came about. Evolution. It's just stating the obvious. No, it's not true to say that no personal being was ever produced except by a personal being. Personal beings, quite simply, evolved from "lower" forms of life.

In addition, I am also referring to other aspects of the personal, like personal relationships and personal communication, those have only been empirically observed to have been created by persons.
(shrug) So what? These are just manifestations of intelligence. Intelligence is just something that happened to evolve.

It's time for you to drop this argument now. It just doesn't make sense. "The universe contains personal beings, and since personal beings have only ever been produced by personal beings, the universe must have been produced by a personal being," is just faulty logic. It makes no more sense than saying that a football is round, an orange is round and that an orange grew on a tree - and then going off to look for the Football Tree, which must exist because footballs are round, like oranges (see earlier in this sentence for the proof).

Ed, there's nothing wrong with saying that you're wrong about something. I've done it before now myself. It doesn't mean you have to stop being a Christian. It just means you realise that one of the many arguments you used has been found to be unsound.
 
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So sorry he died. Of covid.

Had he been a faith healer, he still could have died.

Of covid.

If the folks in the picture abandoned medicine to go solely on faith, I fear that man would also die.

Of covid.
I wasn't trying to make any such point like that, but since you have I'll add. Covid is now the only publicized reason that anyone dies.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Something not obeying the laws of physics is supernatural by definition.
Nobody said the early universe did not obey the laws of physics. All we said is that we do not know, and perhaps will never know, what happened in the first fraction of a second.

And no, saying "we don't know" is not the same thing as same "only Ed1wolf knows."

And no, saying we don't understand the physics is not the same thing as saying it is not physics.


Only a being that is nonphysical can transcend a physical universe. You are a physical being thereby eliminating you as the cause of the universe.
Why can't physical forces transcend the universe? Why can't matter itself transcend the universe? There is nothing saying matter cannot simply exist forever and go in and out of different universes through singularities.

One of the characteristics of the Christian God is that He is nonphysical, thereby making Him a likely candidate.
First, you have not proven the creator is nonphysical.

Second, you have not proven God.

Third, you have not proven that God is nonphysical. (And saying that certain ancient sheep herders said he was nonphsyical is not proof he is nonphysical.)

Fourth, if God is nonphysical, how did Jacob get in a wrestling match with God?

Fifth, if God could not defeat men with chariots of iron, how can he create universes?

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Judges 1:19)​
No, as I explained earlier the hebrew term translated firmament in the KJV can also mean an open expanse. See above how He is nonphysical, ie spirit.
Yep. Just like the word "God". You make up multiple definitions, then use the one that matches your theology in each verse. Sorry, that is not legitimate.


No, It means that in order to prove the consistency of a system such as nature, science, or mathematics, it is impossible to prove it from within the system. You must go outside the system. So for nature, you must go outside nature, ie the supernature or supernatural. Or to explain the physical you have to go to the metaphysical.
And in order to prove the metaphysical you need to go outside the metaphysical?


While apes have some simple aspects of personal beings, they dont have the full orb of personhood.
Duh. We agree.
No, Chomsky and other language experts say that only the human brain has a built in grammar and
syntax abilities, that point to a primordial single language from which all others originated. Dolphins dont have a real language.
Koko the gorilla recognized 2000 words and could put them together. Her syntax was crude, but she had crude language abilities.

Maybe but unlikely as i stated above, QM needs time to occur.
What I said was that something like quantum mechanics could always have existed. We know quantum mechanics as it works within our space time, but that is not proof that it, or something like it does not work outside our spacetime.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: The best scholars use the grammatico-historical hermeneutic which is how you understand any document. Using that method you can show the most likely correct interpretation.

dm: You say this in response to, "Is alcohol, marijuana, cussing, gambling, gay sex, or abortion acceptable?" The problem you have is that your book was written by many different people with different ideas. They contradict each other. When you take a contradictory book and use that as an absolute standard of morality, you get confusion. Hence the immense differences between Christians on which actions are allowed and which are not allowed.
Most all denominations that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials for salvation and moral teachings.

dm: The "grammatico-historical hermeneutic" that yields a "most likely correct interpretation" is certainly subjective. I do not see how your subjective interpretation of an old book is a better source of morality then my morality based on fairness and respect for other people.
Gods morality has produced almost everything good about Western civilization. Your morality categorizes certain persons as not worthy to live, ie the unwanted unborn.

dm: 1 Samuel 15:2-3 )

If they were being killed because they celebrated, why doesn't the Bible say kill them for celebrating?
Well we dont know for sure but they probably had heard how the hebrews and their powerful God had defeated the Egyptians and therefore their ability to kill and harass the hebrews as representatives of their powerful God would make them very proud and it is likely a high point in their history. Even though during the Exodus they mostly picked off the weak, sick and elderly at the end of the line of marchers. That also made God and hebrews especially angry with them. And the Amalekites knew that the hebrews were representatives of Yahweh who just like unbelievers today was especially hated.

dm: And where does the Bible say they celebrated? Are you pulling a Trump and making up a celebration?
See above.

dm: And even if they did celebrate a war that had happened 400 years earlier, do people who celebrate a previous war against your country deserve death? If you answer "yes", then what about those who wave the confederate flag? Are they not celebrating a past war?
The difference is they targeted the weak, sick, and elderly and they knew that the hebrews were the representatives of the Creator and King of the Universe. It was an insurrection against the good King, therefore, basically treason. Treason often deserves death especially against a good ruler or government.

dm: Numbers 31, and the reported slaughter of the Midianites. In that slaughter they reportedly obeyed the command to kill all including the babies, but exempted the virgins, which they captured. Can you figure out why they kept only the virgins? Numbers 31:4 [edit: should say Numbers 31:40 ] tells us, "and the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons." Pray tell me, what did the Lord need thirty two captive virgins for?
Most likely To provide unindoctrinated wives for the priests.

dm: So again we see the command for a massive slaughter of a different ethnic group. Again we find the command to kill the babies, except this time it was only the male babies. Any virgin girls were kept for, er, uh, I will leave it to your imagination. And you justify killing the parents of these young girls, and taking them as captive in another society?
Since God is the Judge of the Universe and this group had rebelled against Him and therefore under the death penalty for their sins. Remember according to the universal law of justice all humans deserve immediate death at birth because of our sin, but God is gracious and merciful and he gave them to adulthood to repent but they did not so their time was up. So He used the hebrews as His arm of capital punishment. But the children could be saved because had not become hardened to sin and would have a much better life living among the Hebrews a much more superior society.

dm: And I don't see your answer to the last question, where it states that "the Lord" got 32 of the captive virgins for himself. Can you tell me why the Lord needed a bounty of 32 captive virgins?
See above.

dm: Does any of that sound evil to you?
No, not from the perspective of ultimate reality.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, not from the perspective of ultimate reality.
This is in response to, "Does any of that sound evil to you?" We were talking about the slaughter of Amalekite babies, where Saul was commanded to kill every Amalekite including every baby. And we were talking about the slaughter of the Midianites, where the Israelites reportedly killed them all, except for the virgins that the Israelites kept for themselves. One would think that such things would be judged for what they are, an assault on the dignity of other humans, and a massive breaking of the trust relationship among humans that is needed for survival. But no, you turn to your view of "ultimate reality", that is, God as you know him. And as God is reported to be on the side of killing the Amalikite babies, you elect the slaughter.

Say what you will, but your view is "might makes right". God is the mightiest. Therefore he gets to make any rule he wants to make. It does not matter how evil one might think his actions are. He is the mightiest, so do what he says.

But when you consider that what "he says" is only that which certain ancient sheepherders wrote long ago about what he said, it is amazing that their words can have such a profound influence on your life.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Ed1wolf, your defense of the slaughter of 1 Samuel 15 makes no sense. To review, we are talking about an event where the Israelites were reportedly told to kill all the Amalekites, including all the babies. The reason for this slaughter? "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt." (1 Samuel 15:2). So in 1 Samuel we find men, women and children being killed because of what their ancestors had reportedly done 400 years earlier. This is fair?

If you had been with Saul on that day, would you have willingly and gladly followed this command? Would you have willingly and gladly taken newborn babies and thrust your sword through their heart, with no sense of guilt for what you were doing? Would you have chased a screaming three year old down the street, ignored his cries, and thrust your sword willingly and gladly through his heart?

Now lets look at your defense of this slaughter.

Well we dont know for sure but they probably had heard how the hebrews and their powerful God had defeated the Egyptians
First this was 400 years earlier.

Second, you don't know for sure that they did this. Even if we were to trust Exodus, let's look at what Exodus says the children of Amalek had done 400 years earlier:

Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim. (Exodus 17:8)​

That's it. That is all we have to go on. The Israelites were wandering through lands where the Amalekites were dwelling. Somehow tensions grew, and a war broke out. Who was at fault? We really don't have much to go by. But this was the Amalekite's home, and the Hebrews were newcomers, so one would think the Amalekites might have a case. (Build that wall!) But somehow you make up assumptions about what this was all about.

So just like you need to insert "became the ancestor of" in Genesis and "only when wise" in Luke, now you insert all kinds of innuendo against the Amalekites in Exodus that simply is not there.


and therefore their ability to kill and harass the hebrews as representatives of their powerful God would make them very proud and it is likely a high point in their history.
Exodus says nothing about Amalek proudly harassing Hebrews. You just inserted this into the text.

Even though during the Exodus they mostly picked off the weak, sick and elderly at the end of the line of marchers.
Pray tell, how do you get this from, "Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim."?

That also made God and hebrews especially angry with them.
Like a bunch of hornets, I suppose.

And the Amalekites knew that the hebrews were representatives of Yahweh who just like unbelievers today was especially hated.
Where does Exodus say they hated Yahweh?

The difference is they targeted the weak, sick, and elderly and they knew that the hebrews were the representatives of the Creator and King of the Universe.
Oh, you are on a roll now. So "Amalek...fought with Israel" gets interpreted as "they targeted the weak, sick, and elderly and they knew that the hebrews were the representatives of the Creator and King of the Universe".

It was an insurrection against the good King, therefore, basically treason. Treason often deserves death especially against a good ruler or government.

You are on a roll here. And they killed all the cats, ate all the children, flew around on broomsticks, and played soccer with Hebrew heads too, I guess?

Sorry, the slaughter of 1 Samuel 15 is wrong. Your defense makes no sense.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
doubtingmerle, kudos to you for being so consistent throughout this thread. If I told you “God is in you” and by God I mean the potential to be honest, truthful, kind and patient with others? It’s maybe not the full Christian definition of God, but it certainly has those attributes. Would you accept that?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
doubtingmerle, kudos to you for being so consistent throughout this thread. If I told you “God is in you” and by God I mean the potential to be honest, truthful, kind and patient with others? It’s maybe not the full Christian definition of God, but it certainly has those attributes. Would you accept that?
Thanks.

If I must place a bet on meeting a God after death, then I would bet that the God I would meet would value things like honesty, truthfulness, kindness and patience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ok, Ed what's next? Hitler, gay sex, or the Big Bang?


Suicide! I should have guessed that would come back.

Suicide seems to be some kind of an obsession with you. Again and again you bring up the question of why people don't just kill themselves. Why the fascination with suicide?



Listen Ed. I want to live. I love my life. I have explained that to you multiple times. And I really don't need you to keep asking me why we don't just kill ourselves. Sorry, not interested.
No, my point is that you have no rationally objective basis for discouraging someone from suicide.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: Well I guess it is close to how Christians conduct science, but since naturalism assumes there is no God, maybe a better term is methodological theistic naturalism or Theistic methodological naturalism.
Theistic methodological naturalism! I love it. It is actually a good term. You are theists who use naturalism in your methodology in the scientific world.

dm: Where I object is when you claim that methodological naturalism has its source in the Bible, which is simply wrong.

Actually theistic methodological naturalism has its source in the Bible.

dm: Genesis 11 in the last 5000 years or so, and that involves a lot of reported miracles and actions of God. There I find things like two whole chapters of Joel dedicated to the concept that locust invasions are caused by sin and cured by prayer and fasting. That is hardly "Theistic methodological naturalism".
Relative to the trillions of events that occur in 5000 years the number of miracles is still relatively small. Locust invasions are not supernatural events and neither is the timing of the end of them. They are providential events however.

ed: I would hardly say you proved that it was often not the case, you mentioned two or three societies. I would say 95% of primitive cultures did accept belief in the spiritual world.

dm: I gave you a link that documented my claim of unbelief in ancient tribes. I know it is behind a paywall, but the evidence is there.
Evidence of what? It only mentioned two or three oddball societies. So what?

dm: And it is still unclear how you think species originated. There are 7 to 10 million species out there. You seem to be saying that each was created in a separate miracle that completely violated the laws of nature. That is a lot of miracles.

You say you are a biologist, so I would think the origin of the species would be something you would think about.
Actually the fossil record shows He generally only intervened to create genera. Microevolution produced species in most cases.

dm: Wait, now you have 2 million years of empirical observations of complex linguistic codes? Empirical science has only been around for 500 years or so, or perhaps 5000 years if you want to stretch the definition. But 2 million years of empirical observations? I don't think so.
Humans came into existence around 2 mya and began using language and humans observed other humans using lauguage.

dm: Random processes are actually quite good at creating complex codes. There is a whole field of genetic algorithms that uses these random processes to generate unique solutions. See Genetic algorithm - Wikipedia
You mean a complex computer program designed to simulate a certain version of evolution? Sounds like intelligent design to me. I am referring to empirical observation.

dm: That seems to be a common line with you: Catholics aren't really Christians. German Lutherans weren't really Christians. I wasn't really a Christian.
I never said orthodox members of those denominations were not Christians, I was only referring to the members that reject orthodox teaching. They are not Christians. Just like going into a garage and saying "I am a car" doesnt make you a car. So also, just saying you are a Christian does not make you one.

dm: I assure you, I was really a Christian, a mature Christian, a Sunday School teacher and Christian worker.

I was first a Mennonite, then a Fundamentalist Baptist, then a mainstream Evangelical. I have been there.
Only God knows whether you were a real Christian.

dm: Jack Hyles was a piece of work. He reportedly had the largest church in America with 20,000 in attendance each week. He, John R. Rice, and Jerry Falwell worked together in the Sword of the Lord movement. Jerry Falwell later got kicked out of the movement because the others did not think he was fundamentalist enough. Hyles and some of his followers ended up in a series of sex scandals.

Never heard of the Sword of the Lord movement either. Of course, I am not a fundamentalist which may be why. Though I do consider Falwell a good man and minister. From his behavior it sounds like Hyles may not have been a Christian. Sounds like that may have been one thing that turned you against Christianity.

dm: I gave you a link that documented my claim of unbelief in ancient tribes. I know it is behind a paywall, but the evidence is there.
The link only mentioned two or three oddball tribes. So what? What does that prove?


dm: I think the expression about leading a horse to water but not making him drink relates quite well to this thread. Someone--I won't mention the name--doesn't appear to be drinking.
If you think I will become an atheist, you may as well give up, I dont want to be that irrational. I have already been an agnostic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's odd. I heard that people were dying of heart attacks too.
There's the report (dec.30 2020) of Congressman-elect who suffered a heart attack while battling covid. However, there were earlier reports (apr.6 2020) that the percentage of heart attack hospitalization have decreased since the covid phenomena.

There's also the report (jul.2 2020) that showed a percentage of heart disease deaths and delaying to go to the hospital to get treatment.
While the CDC has counted heart attack deaths as due to covid.

So there's any number of statistics that are being reported. So any one statistic cannot override the other as being the more accurate report.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, my point is that you have no rationally objective basis for discouraging someone from suicide.
But I discourage it anyway.

You, on the other hand, keep asking me why I continue to live my life and why I don't end it all. I have explained to you multiple times, that I love life and want it to go on. But that doesn't end your endless questions asking me over and over why I don't commit suicide.

Did it not occur to you that it is rude to keep asking a person why he does not commit suicide?

I suppose you will not be asked to work for a suicide hotline. They tend to frown on people who answer the phone, "Hello. Unless you have my religion, you have no rationally objective basis for not committing suicide. Can I help you?"
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So there's any number of statistics that are being reported. So any one statistic cannot override the other as being the more accurate report.
Ah, some people lie with statistics. So therefore no report can say that the other report is wrong? That's odd. For the very basis of science is that scientists examine the work of each other, and evaluate whether other works are legitimate science. I sorta like that informed people review reports to see if they are more accurate than others.

You may be referring to an article published in a student newsletter of Johns Hopkins arguing that many reported COVID deaths are actually deaths by heart attacks. This student newsletter article was in no way supported by Johns Hopkins. When Johns Hopkins saw that this article with its misuse of statistics was being used to falsely minimize the threat of COVID, they moved it so it did not appear to be a Johns Hopkins endorsed study. See A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 - The Johns Hopkins News-Letter (jhunewsletter.com) .

So no, you cannot say that there are all kinds of statistics out there, and we are free to select whichever ones we like.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Actually theistic methodological naturalism has its source in the Bible.
Wait, you are talking about the book that says locust invasions are caused by sin? Are you sure your Bible gets read? OK. let's open your book together and read:

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.
Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.
The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it. (Deuteronomy 28:15-21)​

Are you going to tell me this teaches an orderly world based on natural laws with little divine interference? Will you say this teaches methodological naturalism as the means of solving such problems?

Deuteronomy goes on and on, all the way down to verse 65. Read it. Just about every bad thing that could possibly happen is said to be the result of sin, not of natural processes. Let's look at one more verse from the list:

The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. (Deuteronomy 28:27 )​

Oh dear. I don't want to get hemorrhoids and scabs and itches that cannot be healed. I would have thought science, through the use of methodological naturalism, could address these issues.

What does Deuteronomy say is the cure for all these issues? See the first verse of that chapter.

Please don't tell me that Deuteronomy 28 teaches theistic methodological naturalism. It doesn't.

Relative to the trillions of events that occur in 5000 years the number of miracles is still relatively small. Locust invasions are not supernatural events and neither is the timing of the end of them. They are providential events however.
Tell that to the author of Deut. 28.

Anyway, you bring this up because you claim that Christianity's support of methodological naturalism is a sign that Christianity is true. One might think that Mark 16:17-18 actually said:

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they [know that there is no need to] cast out devils; they shall speak with [ordinary tongues, not] new tongues;
They shall [realize that serpents follow natural laws and not] take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not [help them, but it will] hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and [that won't make them recover, but they will use methodological naturalism to study diseases, and find cures and ] they shall recover.​

Cool. By only adding just a few words (in red) we get Mark 16 to teach methodological naturalism, just as you claim. Cool, huh?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.