Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I dont have time to go thru all 29, pick the three you think are the best evidences and I will respond.
Actually recent research has shown the famous horse series to be false. Miohippus' ancestor was supposedly Mesohippus but actually Miohippus is now found in the fossil record before Mesohippus therefore eliminating Mesohippus as its ancestor and some of the fossils are not even related at all to modern horses such as Protohippus. But also some of it may be microevolution of the horse kind or genus or family.
I didnt say it was always done from scratch, some organisms in a family may have just had their genes tweaked by God. But of course, God does not violate His laws, He just suspends them temporarily on rare occasions.
See above, He doesnt violate anything.
No, that is not my argument. According to the scientific Law of Biogenesis, life can only come from life. This was established by the great Louis Pasteur. And language and love have only been empirically observed coming from personal beings.
That is not my only argument that it probably never happened, but I dont deny that there is some evidence for evolution, just not enough to convince me. Maybe God used evolution to create us but as I said logic strongly points to the ultimate cause being personal.
Genetic entropy is not the same thing as thermodynamic entropy.
Scientific studies.
Genetic entropy and not enough time to name two significant barriers to macroevolution.
Genetic entropy is not the same thing as thermodynamic entropy.
I disagree.Ed: Because it does not fit the scientific and theological evidence as well as OEC.
ia: You're half right. It doesn't fit the theological evidence better, but it sure does fit the scientific evidence better.
I demonstrated that He likely exists earlier in this thread.ed: Actually, the fossil record shows that it is more likely that God intervened usually at the Genus level when environmental conditions resulted in significant extinctions.
ia: Begging the question fallacy. Your argument assumes that God exists.
It is irrational.ed: It claims that life, language, and love came from the random motion of subatomic particles.
ia: Yes? What's wrong with that?
If you are using logic.ed: That is just the process by which a person is produced but the ultimate cause has to be personal.
ia: Does it?
Why?
I never said it was simple. But I did demonstrate that the foundational aspect of it is not a contradiction.ed: Scholars have tried to fully explain the Trinity for close to 2000 years, but no one has been able to. This is actually evidence that the Christian God is not manmade, most man made religions can explain everything about their god.
ia: And after all that time you spent on this thread telling us it was simple and you'd be happy to explain it to us?
You're right, of course. Nobody has been able to make sense of the doctrine of the Trinity, because it doesn't make sense.
Well I think you probably would agree with me on at least some of it.ed: He would not have all those illnesses that the study refers to, that would certainly be better off dont you think? I am sure that alcoholics and pedophiles think that they are not being true to themselves either when they are not allowed to engage in their preferred behavior. But ultimately they are improving themselves by refrainng which should be the goal for all of us, right?
ia: I'd like to answer you, but it would be breaking forum rules to do so.
I thought I ought to make you aware of that. We've mentioned it before, but you might not know that the rules could very well apply to an answer to this particular question.
Because A ---> a, ~A --//-->a.ed: You are free to believe that random motions of atoms can produce things such as language, love and life, but it is more rational to believe that such things came from pre-existing forms of these things.
ia: Why?
Fraid so, my relationship and experience with Him has confirmed that He is good. Just like you determine your friends are good.ed: No, I dont deny that humans cannot understand God's moral perfectly or perfectly objectively.
ia: This means you cannot say if God is good or not. The things you can't understand about God's morality could be explained simply by His being an evil God, and you have no way of showing that He is not.
Thanks for providing a reference to prove my point.ed: Actually many evolutionists even today believe in a form of social Darwinism. Though of course, not the extreme point of the Nazis.
ia: To quote Richard Dawkins:
"I was mortified to read in the Guardian (‘Animal Instincts’, 27 May 2006) that The Selfish Gene is the favourite book of Jeff Skilling, CEO of the infamous Enron Corporation, and that he derived inspiration of a Social Darwinist character from it. The Guardian journalist Richard Conniff gives a good explanation of the misunderstanding: Animal instincts. I have tried to forestall similar misunderstandings in my new preface to the thirtieth-anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene, just brought out by Oxford University Press."
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (p. 267).
Not only can Christian morality be founded on Gods character, it is founded on His objectively existing character. As I earlier demonstrated His likely existence.ed: This is true, which is my point, if there is no God then there is no such thing as real existing morality.
ia: At this point in the thread, after a full and thorough exploration of your arguments, we've established that in fact the opposite is true. If there is a God such as the one you describe, then there is no such thing as real, existing morality. This has been quite clearly demonstrated by your inability to show that Christian morality can be founded on God's character, and your complete inability to refute Euthyphro's Dilemma.
That too.ed: Us being animals does mean something to many people. Often in debates about the morality of homosexuality, one of the first arguments in favor of it being moral is that other animals engage in homosexual behavior.
ia: In the debates I've read, that point is usually made when the anti-homosexualist claims that homosexuality is unnatural, not immoral.
Only in the sense that His commands are based on His character.ed: My morality is not based on some divine command theory but rather the moral character of God.
ia: In your case, going by what you have said in this thread, they're the same thing.
No, he was referring to the original protest that was over the statue of Robert E. Lee. There were good people on both sides of that protest. Then that original protest degraded into a riotous battle between Neo-Nazis and Antifa. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists multiple times. Probably more than any president in history. This was even admitted to by the NY Times.ed: Though Japan was a pretty horrible place until Douglas MacArthur gave them a Judeo-Christian Constitution. Though even today they are much more racist and sexist than most Western societies.
ia: Heard the news? A gang of white hooligans bearing Confederate flags just invaded the seat of American government. The President-for-five-more-days is supported by the Ku Klux Klan and, in a rally where there were Neo-Nazis chanting "Jews shall not replace us," he said there were very fine people on both sides.
No, genocide is the destroying of a people group just because of who they are. Moses and the hebrews were destroying groups because of the evil that they had done.ed: And God revealed the concept of human equality to Moses 1000 years before Aristotle.
ia: You mean Moses who ordered wholesale genocide?
The Bible does not teach that.ed: Christians are commanded to influence society for good. ie being salt and light in the world and society.
ia: “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”
Fraid not. As I demonstrated earlier, American slavery violates Biblical teaching.ed: That is how they ended slavery in several nations, mistreatment of children and women, and many produced many of western societies best ideas and practices, such as human equality, true justice, ending infanticide and abortion.
ia: Slavery in the USA was directly based on the Bible.
it is a plain violation of the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment.ia: And by the way, what exactly is wrong with abortion?
And yet you are still unable to give a justification for your definition of what goodness is.Fraid so, my relationship and experience with Him has confirmed that He is good. Just like you determine your friends are good.
You misunderstood it. Dawkins is complaining that an immoral man misunderstood the theory of evolution. Not unlike some others I can think of.Thanks for providing a reference to prove my point.
None of that is true in the slightest. You're confusing "claim" with "demonstrate"Not only can Christian morality be founded on Gods character, it is founded on His objectively existing character. As I earlier demonstrated His likely existence.
Yes. And that leads us to the question you are unable to answer: how can we tell that God's character is good when you have defined goodness as being based on God's character? It's a circular argument, and you're stuck on it.Only in the sense that His commands are based on His character.
Trump's sympathies clearly were and are with the Neo-Nazis and KKK, just as (and because) their sympathies were clearly for him. He waited for days to clarify a statement on them, despite repeatedly being asked to, and then - only when he was forced to do so by public opinion - he tried a mealy-mouthed excuse about how he was speaking about "very fine people" who were demonstrating - in favour of the statue of a pro-slavery Confederate leader.No, he was referring to the original protest that was over the statue of Robert E. Lee. There were good people on both sides of that protest. Then that original protest degraded into a riotous battle between Neo-Nazis and Antifa. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists multiple times. Probably more than any president in history. This was even admitted to by the NY Times.
Yuk.No, genocide is the destroying of a people group just because of who they are. Moses and the hebrews were destroying groups because of the evil that they had done.
Christians are commanded to influence society for good. ie being salt and light in the world and society.
“Kill them all and let God sort them out.”
As I've demonstrated frequently, American slavery was founded on a perfectly correct interpretation of Biblical teachings.Fraid not. As I demonstrated earlier, American slavery violates Biblical teaching.
Nonsense.it is a plain violation of the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment.
Well, if you hadn't taken three weeks plus to reply to my comment I could probably have told you directly; now it may take longer. Also, your question suggests to me that you are unaware of how some of your posts come acrss, so I'll find an example and analyse it in detail for you.When did I do that?
I would like to read that.Well, if you hadn't taken three weeks plus to reply to my comment I could probably have told you directly; now it may take longer. Also, your question suggests to me that you are unaware of how some of your posts come acrss, so I'll find an example and analyse it in detail for you.
What is your foundation of morality that is objective? Since God ultimately created everything that exists, ultimately things circle back to Him by definition.ed; Yes, but if there is no God then there is no objective basis for morality and it doesnt really exist, it is just personal preference.
ia: As you have demonstrated in this thread, with commendable thoroughness, it is the Christian who claims God is the foundation of morality who does not have a leg to stand on. It is your morality that is completely relative and thus meaningless. You have shown this many times by your inability to explain how you know that God's laws are moral, forcing you to use circular reasoning.
No, I said humans live according to what they THINK is real. Most people dont live according to reality. And if they are not Christians then they dont have an objective basis for morality. You misconstrued reality with morality.ed: And since humans generally live according to what they think is objectively real, not having an objective basis for morality is a slippery slope toward tyranny and moral degradation.
ia: You've just contradicted yourself. If humans live according to an objective reality, then they do have an objective basis for their reality, ie, the real world.
According to science they do.ed: humanism...allows the killing of unborn women)
ia: There is no such thing as an unborn woman. Nor do abortions affect unborn girls or unborn infants (also things that don't exist).
Embryos and fetuses have all the characteristics we have just in a different form.ia: In almost every case, abortions performed on embryos and fetuses. Since these are not persons, I have no problem with this.
Fraid not, as I demonstrated long ago on this thread.ed: does not allow involuntary slavery as I demonstrated earlier
ia: As has been demonstrated to you more than once now, the Bible not only permits slavery, but encourages it. Western slavery in the USA was directly founded on the Christian religion, and correctly so, given what the Bible says about slavery.
That was the special case where God used the ancient Hebrews to mete out His judgement on evil nations occupying the Promised Land.ed: encourages us to obey the moral laws of the universe which allows us the greater freedom to flourish.
ia: "So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man."
It's a very moral law, don't you know.
Most secular humanists are socialists, which is what I said above explaining what socialism is.ed: Humanism pushes for more powerful governments and more rules and regulations which restricts human freedom and flourishing.
ia: "Humanism is a democratic and ethical lifestance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."
– Humanists International
Sounds good to me!
No, the NTS fallacy does not apply to Christianity because we actually have an objective definition of what a Christian is, it is called the Bible.ed: Most of those things are the result of the corrupt leadership of the Roman Catholic Church whom ignored the actual teachings of Christ and His word and restricted access to His word which kept the people ignorant of what God expected of them morally. But then when the Reformation occurred and His word became more widespread and taught to the people things slowly began to improve.
ia: Let me tell you a story.
I had an uncle, who was Scottish. And he told me that a true Scotsman never puts sugar on his porridge.
Then one day I went on holiday and saw some Scottish men eating porridge, and one of them was putting sugar on it.
I got home and mentioned it to my uncle, wondering if he would revise his opinion. Not a bit of it!
"Ach, y'see, laddie," he said, "He wisna a true Scotsman. A true Scotsman nivver puts salt on his porridge, ye ken."
Thus ends today's lesson in logical fallacies.
What is your foundation of morality that is objective?
If God created everything that existed. Boy, you really like begging the question, don't you?What is your foundation of morality that is objective? Since God ultimately created everything that exists, ultimately things circle back to Him by definition.
People all share a common human nature. While we are all different, we all value happiness and love, and we all wish to avoid pain. Therefore, we all have human values in common, upon which it is possible to create a sense of right and wrong. And while we may disagree about what is important, we rarely disagree about whether red is blue or hot is cold.No, I said humans live according to what they THINK is real. Most people dont live according to reality. And if they are not Christians then they dont have an objective basis for morality. You misconstrued reality with morality.
According to science, there is no such thing as an unborn woman. Nor, according to science, do abortions affect unborn girls or unborn infants, because "woman", "girl" and "infant" are all things that cannot exist until after a baby is born.According to science they do.
What does personhood mean to you, Ed? How would you define a person?Embryos and fetuses have all the characteristics we have just in a different form.
Claimed, not demonstrated. US slavery was based on the Bible.Fraid not, as I demonstrated long ago on this thread.
Including their non-innocent, guilty-of-terrible-crimes little children?That was the special case where God used the ancient Hebrews to mete out His judgement on evil nations occupying the Promised Land.
Socialism certainly has good elements, including the idea that people should be provided for if they are in need. But most secular humanists are not socialists. You've already had the description they apply to themselves. If you wish to reject it, fine.Most secular humanists are socialists, which is what I said above explaining what socialism is.
And of course, the vast majority of Christians who would disagree with you about what a Christians should believe - well, they're just mistaken, aren't they?No, the NTS fallacy does not apply to Christianity because we actually have an objective definition of what a Christian is, it is called the Bible.
I dont know, it depends on what kind of god. If it is like the deist god, then no, it just created the universe and then had nothing else to do with it.Ok, so we are back to the thought experiment where we imagine that there is a completely independent second universe, created by a completely independent God, where the persons there have no way of knowing about our universe or the God that may have made it. Would persons in this imaginary universe be required to follow what their creator says?
See what the god does and use their moral conscience to make that determination.dm: You say it depends on whether that God is good. OK, how would those persons in that other universe determine if their God is good?
If you mean, use your conscience then yes. Or they could have a relationship with the god if it wants and then use your conscience and experience with it to make that determination.dm: I contend that the only way they could determine if their God is good is to use similar criteria to what humanists use to determine good.
I wouldnt exactly say the Christian God demands obedience, but rather strongly recommends it if you want a happy and fulfilling life in this world and the next. But He gives you free will to choose to reject Him if you want to. The Christian God wants a relationship with us, so the way to find out is get in a relationship with Him and use your experience and moral conscience to make that determination.The same conundrum applies to our universe. Even if a God exists, and this God demands obedience, how would you determine if this God is good?
That only applies to teaching in the church. And it is not degrading. Both genders have different roles but not inferior or superior roles. Just like a woman cannot be a father, so also a man cannot be a mother. Being a father is not superior to a mother, nor a mother superior to a father. They are just different roles with different responsibilities. Being a teacher in the church is not superior to being a deaconess in the church nor vice versa. Just different roles with different responsibilities.1 Corinthians 14:34 says:
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
That sounds degrading to me.
Most I have met, talked to, and read about, tend toward socialism. Like Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris. I am not saying that ALL secular humanists are socialists but they majority tend in that direction.dm: No it does not. Humanism stands for human freedom and flourishing. It is opposed to tyranny. It also recognizes the value of good government. Some rules and regulations are helpful. Some are not. Humanists disagree on the extent of government. But none supports tyranny, and none supports lawless anarchy. There is a broad range in the middle, and Humanists can be anywhere in that range.
For instance, Penn Jillette, of the team Penn and Teller, is an outspoken Atheist who is also very Libertarian. See Penn Jillette: Is Libertarianism Compatible with Atheism? - Big Think
But some of its teachings are unique such as human equality and uniqueness and concept of intrinsic human rights.OK, so "God's moral law" is similar to the laws of successful societies?
I agree.
That is not proof that the Bible is uniquely authoritative. That is proof that the Bible is one of many similar systems.
That article claims that Gods characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence came from the Greeks, but that is plainly wrong all those characteristics of God were taught in the OT long before the Greeks even existed.dm: Here is some of the evidence that the Greeks influenced early Christianity: Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy - Wikipedia
The fact that Humanists and Christians learned from earlier moral systems is not proof that we need to go back to an earlier system.
No, that passage is plainly a prophecy, not a command.dm: Psalms 137:8-9 says:
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
This comes from the book that you want to take us back to. I am fine with some things in your book, but I am not fine with verses like this. It is wrong* to praise those who take little babies and dash them against stones. Where your book is wrong, we should say it is wrong.
* (Once again, since my posts are in English, use any common English dictionary as a reference if you do not understand what I mean by the word "wrong".)
Neither do the mafia demand compliance, they just strongly recommend it.I wouldnt exactly say the Christian God demands obedience, but rather strongly recommends it if you want a happy and fulfilling life in this world and the next.
Remind me again - what exactly happens if you are not obedient to God's commands?I wouldnt exactly say the Christian God demands obedience, but rather strongly recommends it if you want a happy and fulfilling life in this world and the next.
Ah, so you say if I were in another universe with another God, I should let my moral conscience decide.I dont know, it depends on what kind of god.
See what the god does and use their moral conscience to make that determination.
If you mean, use your conscience then yes.
It's not just in the church. The Bible says, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18) That is not equal to the husband's position.That only applies to teaching in the church.
That depends on your view. To me it is degrading to tell a person you may not speak in church because you are of the wrong gender.And it is not degrading.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?