• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
No, it did happen. Jews from both Israel and Judah returned from exile after 70 years. Rachels children did return from exile, all historians agree on this.

Fraid so.



Mark is not referring to the kingdom of Israel and Judah. Jesus in Mark is referring to the coming of the new kingdom under the new covenant. This began in 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple just as Christ predicted. And no it was not written after the fact, most scholars agree that Mark was written in the 50's or 60s before 70 AD. If it had been Mark would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple as fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy but he didnt.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I am not denying that living things dont require a net increase in entropy, but just like life this is true of human designed of similar highly complex things. So this is evidence that living things require intense input of intellectually directed entropy. Creating order requires directed, external interference. Some of the significant scientific advances in the past 75 years in this context:

  • Widespread vaccinations in the mid-twentieth century, minimizing or eliminating many diseases
  • Transistors in 1947, followed by integrated circuits and the microchip decades later
  • Satellites in the 1950s and humans on the Moon in 1969
  • Mainframe computers using punch cards in the 1950s and personal computers in the 1970s
  • Hand-held electronic calculators replacing slide rules in the early 1970s
  • CT scanners in the 1970s, making most exploratory surgery unnecessary
  • Readily available cell phones in the 1980s
  • Universal access to the world wide web in the 1990s
  • Today’s smart phones with more computing power than the systems that put men on the Moon
All these inventions and advancements involved the principle of increasing entropy with intelligent, directed external energy input.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟155,694.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, all humans derive meaning from God whether they want to or not.

You're still confused.

You purport to derive your life's meaning from Yahweh, so your life is meaningless without him.

Kindly do not project your bizarre brand of theistic nihilism onto other people.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I didnt assume God exists, I only assumed persons exist. Also, see my argument using the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause earlier in this thread.

See above. Also, you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

Again you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

You have yet to prove it unsound. BTW, footballs are not round at least in America.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟102,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I didnt assume God exists, I only assumed persons exist. Also, see my argument using the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause earlier in this thread.
You said: "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."
I then pointed out that this is meaningless, since it only matters if God actually exists, and you haven't given us any reason to think this is true. I then pointed out that this is a logical fallacy known as begging the question. Which it is.
As for your BB theory and sufficient cause argument, I did look at it. It is unconvincing.
See above. Also, you are assuming what we are trying to prove.
By saying that we know that life was produced by evolution? Of course I'm not. What are you talking about?
Again you are assuming what we are trying to prove.
Evolution produced intelligence. End of argument.
You have yet to prove it unsound. BTW, footballs are not round at least in America.
You are 100% right about footballs, and right to correct me. I should have chosen an internationally acceptable sphere.
But I'm afraid that's the only thing you're right on, because quite frankly you've been wrong - completely and utterly wrong, proven wrong on every page of this amusingly interminable thread - right from the start. Just give it up, will you? You're just making yourself look silly.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,970
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟533,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Nowhere does the second law say that anything needs to be intellectually driven. There are plenty of low entropy things forming as long as the mechanism is there. The mechanism does not need to be intelligent. I have given you multiple examples.
Got it. All of these things require intelligent input. That does not prove that things like glaciers, diamonds, apes, and rivers require intelligent input.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,970
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟533,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
because quite frankly you've been wrong - completely and utterly wrong, proven wrong on every page of this amusingly interminable thread - right from the start. Just give it up, will you? You're just making yourself look silly.
Ah, but what would we do without our Ed1 entertainment with our coffee in the morning?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,970
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟533,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, it did happen. Jews from both Israel and Judah returned from exile after 70 years. Rachels children did return from exile, all historians agree on this.
Excuse me, but historians agree that the northern kingdom ("Rachel's children") had been taken into captivity by Asryria long before the southern kingdom fell to Babylon. It was only the southern kingdom that returned from Babylon. The northern kingdom lost all identity in Asyria.

STRIKE ONE!
Fraid so.
If the prophecy of 70 years had been fulfilled, why was Daniel in Daniel 9 so troubled about Jeremiah's prophecy? And why did the angel need to prophecy a delayed fulfillment after 70 *7 years, if it had been fulfilled in 70 years?

Once again, STRIKE TWO!

Mark is not referring to the kingdom of Israel and Judah.
Mark 13:14 plainly says he is referring to the Abomination of Desolation of Daniel 9. He even says, "Let the reader understand" when he refers to Daniel, so he makes it quite clear what he is referring to. He is referring to the prophecy of 70 years that had been stretched to 490. He now stretches it again. He says immediately after this abomination, in the lifetime of the apostles, the kingdom will come. Although he may have a different interpretation of "kingdom" he is clearly saying the kingdom --promised first by Jeremiah (Strike one) and then by Daniel (strike two)-- will come shortly after 70 AD.

Here's the pitch.....

STRIKE THREE.

Jesus in Mark is referring to the coming of the new kingdom under the new covenant. This began in 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple just as Christ predicted.
That is a creative interpretation of Mark 13. Here is what Mark 13 says will happen shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Did it happen that way? 'Fraid not.
The instant replay verifies the call. That was strike three.
And no it was not written after the fact, most scholars agree that Mark was written in the 50's or 60s before 70 AD. If it had been Mark would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple as fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy but he didnt.
If you look beyond the tiny circle of fundamentalists, you will see an overwhelming consensus of Mark being written after 70 AD.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,970
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟533,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The Nazis thought they were having good lives. So at the foundation, you and the Nazis have the same basis for morality. They were doing what they thought was giving them good lives and you do what you do to have a good life.
Seriously, how many times do you want us to answer the same question?

Again, what you say above is nowhere close to what I am saying. Nowhere did I say that morality is based on picking whatever we want to get a good life. I have repeatedly told you that getting what one wants in ways that break the cooperative trust relationship of humans is wrong. I have told you that over and over. You just clamp your hands over your ears, and pretend you cannot hear me. None of this stops you from repeating the same false charge over and over. To what benefit is if for you to make up things about others, and then to repeat those false charges over and over?

Once again--sigh--we need to build cooperative trusting relationships with others to survive and live a good life. My morality works to built those relationships. The Nazis were breaking the trust relationship necessary to build that cooperation. They were trying to reap the benefits of society, while breaking the trust relationships needed. As such, they were wrong.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,970
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟533,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Some were, some were not.
You are joking, right?

I asked you if the Jews killed in the Holocaust were Christians. There may have been a few Christian Jews there. But most of them certainly were not. And you have referred to non-Christians as "corrupted rebels". If in your view the Jews were corrupted rebels, you certainly are not making much of a case against the Holocaust.

I, on the other hand, consider all people to be of value.

Some may have converted before they died.
Seriously, how many of those Jews would have converted?

The problem for you is that you say unbelievers deserve death and hell. You say Amalekite babies deserved to be killed in war. You say Mideanite babies deserve to be killed in war. You say the babies in the flood deserve to be drowned.

Your book says that all are unprofitable, and do nothing good. You say that this evaluation only applies to non-Christians. In other words, you think most of the Jews in the Holocaust (including the babies) were horrible worthless people who deserve hell. (See Romans 3)

How is that helping the case against the Nazis?


You believe that unbelieving Jews were destined to banishment in hell with no possibility of
reversing that course after death. That does not sound like value to me.

I believe that all people have value.
The fact that their decisions have eternal consequences shows they have infinite value.
A mosquito's decision to bite a person (and pass on malaria) has eternal consequences (according to you). Do mosquitoes have infinite value?

Apparently you dont always need people that live in the womb.
Apparently you don't need people that are half egg and half sperm.

Same thing.

I don't think unfertilized eggs or fertilized eggs are people.

What is in everybody that is of great worth?
Answered many times. Why bother to repeat it when you ignore everything we say?
You say that they had worth but the Nazis thought they didnt. How do you know who is right?
Pretend you had never heard of God or what he says. Would you or would you not be able to determine on your own that people have worth to you? If you can figure out why a person could think that people have worth, why ask me to tell you that time and time again?

Uhh you do know this was a seige right and there was no food? The king was showing his shock and outrage about what both women had done by ripping his clothes and wearing sackcloth, that is what the ancient hebrews did.
You are simply making that up. The Bible says nothing about the king objecting to canabalism. It says the king was angry with Elisha, who was speaking for God. It does not say he was angry at the canabalism.

The problem for you is that the Bible talks about women eating their own sons, with the story making absolutely no inference that this is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,459
13,873
Earth
✟242,558.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
You're right. We should count our blessings, and be grateful for that which we have received.
Oooo, a Brit living in China who just oozes diplomacy, (irony excepted), nicely done!
My Is it 5 to one already?
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
No, cosmologists say the laws of physics break down. The laws of physics breaking down is the way methodological naturalists say "supernatural" without saying it, because if they did they would be fired.

So far most cosmologists believe that the expansion rate and the amount of dark matter will cause the universe to expand forever. All physical forces and matter are within the universe and therefore cannot transcend it.

ed: One of the characteristics of the Christian God is that He is nonphysical, thereby making Him a likely candidate.

dm: First, you have not proven the creator is nonphysical.
Yes, I have, according the laws of logic, a cause cannot be part of an effect. Since the effect is a physical universe, then whatever caused it, cannot be part of the physical universe.

dm: Second, you have not proven God.
I never claimed I could. Just that I can demonstrate that He probably does exist.

dm: Third, you have not proven that God is nonphysical. (And saying that certain ancient sheep herders said he was nonphysical is not proof he is nonphysical.)
See above why He is nonphysical.

dm; Fourth, if God is nonphysical, how did Jacob get in a wrestling match with God?
The biblical evidence points to that being an angel in human form.


ed: No, as I explained earlier the hebrew term translated firmament in the KJV can also mean an open expanse.
Hebrew Concordance: hā·rā·qî·a‘ -- 5 Occurrences (biblehub.com)

dm: 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, I get my definition from the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,459
13,873
Earth
✟242,558.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
No, cosmologists say the laws of physics break down. The laws of physics breaking down is the way methodological naturalists say "supernatural" without saying it, because if they did they would be fired.
So were quarks “supernatural” in the nineteenth century?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,970
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟533,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So were quarks “supernatural” in the nineteenth century?
No doubt the affects of quarks were caused by the God of the Gaps, until quarks were discovered, then the God of the Gaps went on to find a different domain.
 
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,970
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟533,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, cosmologists say the laws of physics break down. The laws of physics breaking down is the way methodological naturalists say "supernatural" without saying it, because if they did they would be fired.
Flapdoodle.

When scientists speak of the laws of physics breaking down as one approaches the Big Bang, what they mean is that we have not worked it out yet. See When the Laws of Physics Break Down – The Platonic Realm (platosrealm.blog) .

Please read something written by a mainstream scientist on the Big Bang before you try to represent what they say. They simply are not saying what you claim they say.
So far most cosmologists believe that the expansion rate and the amount of dark matter will cause the universe to expand forever. All physical forces and matter are within the universe and therefore cannot transcend it.
Understood, the universe appears to be expanding out of control. But there is nothing within the laws of an expanding universe that prevents quantum effects from creating another universe as this one expands.

Yes, I have, according the laws of logic, a cause cannot be part of an effect. Since the effect is a physical universe, then whatever caused it, cannot be part of the physical universe.
But the cause can be very much like the effect.

Go outside of a hurricane, and you will find that the physical phenomenon that caused the hurricane are very much like the phenomenon that work inside the hurricane. There is nothing in science that rules out something very like our universe working "before" our universe and causing our universe.

I never claimed I could. Just that I can demonstrate that He probably does exist.
Only if people buy your convoluted arguments, such as the one I call The Argument from Cat Vomit. I personally did not find them very convincing.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Judges 1:19
No, the he in that verse is referring to Judah, not God. Judah could not drive them out because they had iron chariots and the Judah did not. Remember 99.9% of time God operates by His natural laws.

No, Godels theorem only applies to physical systems or systems based on the physical like math.

ed: While apes have some simple aspects of personal beings, they dont have the full orb of personhood.

dm: Duh. We agree.
At least we agree on something!


No, without grammar it is not true language.

That means it is supernatural. So now you agree there is evidence for the supernatural? Glad to hear it!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.