Where's God?

[doubtingmerle]

That means it is supernatural. So now you agree there is evidence for the supernatural? Glad to hear it!

So you are back to just making things up that I say? What good does that accomplish?

What I said was:

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.
​

Notice that I said it once, then I had to come back and remind you what I said, then I had to come back and remind you what I said that I said. Now are you going to make me remind you of what I said that I said that I said?

This is ridiculous, Ed.

Quantum mechanics is physical. It is not supernatural.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, the he in that verse is referring to Judah, not God.

That is simply not what Judges 1:19 says:

And Jehovah was with Judah; and drove out [the inhabitants of] the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.​

Jehovah is the subject of the previous phrase. So "he" clearly means Jehovah. It's simple grammar.

No, without grammar it is not true language.

And if you butcher up the language of Judges 1:19, is it no longer true language?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Godel's incompleteness theorems refers to mathematics. There are many similar theorems. Per wikipedia:

Gödel's incompleteness theorems were the first of several closely related theorems on the limitations of formal systems. They were followed by Tarski's undefinability theorem on the formal undefinability of truth, Church's proof that Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable, and Turing's theorem that there is no algorithm to solve the halting problem. (Source: Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia )​

How do you know that something similar does not apply to metaphysics?

Although we cannot state a formal set of axioms that cover everything, our brains have so many parallel operations that we make sense of things anyway. None of this proves God.

Your latest argument appears to be:

The argument from incompleteness.

1. No logic system is complete.
2. This argument uses logic.
3. Therefore God exists.​

For more such gobblygook, see ExChristian.Net - Articles: Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence .

 

[InterestedAtheist]

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.

As @doubtingmerle says, it's simple grammar; God is the subject of the sentence.
Of course, it can't be that, can it? If so, God would be in the wrong, and you can't have that, so you have to try to bend the sentence out of shape.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hebrew Concordance: hā·rā·qî·a‘ -- 5 Occurrences (biblehub.com)

This does not prove that "firmament" sometimes means expanse. You have simply found some translations that choose to translate it that way sometimes. Are those translations biased?

The preface to the NIV, for instance, states that "the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form." That is hardly the statement of translators that are trying to treat the words of the Bible without bias.

At any rate, the Bible often uses the word firmament, and the usage of this term is always consistent with the ancient notion that there was a structure fixed to the earth that held up the stars and stores of rain water.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

That was not an assault on the dignity of other humans. Because we are in a constant state of rebellion against the Holy King of the Universe, we all deserve death at birth. So actually God was being gracious and merciful by allowing their society 400 years to repent but they didnt and God decided their time was up. And most lived awhile after birth, so God was merciful to the individuals making up the society as well.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That was not an assault on the dignity of other humans. Because we are in a constant state of rebellion against the Holy King of the Universe, we all deserve death at birth. So actually God was being gracious and merciful by allowing their society 400 years to repent but they didnt and God decided their time was up. And most lived awhile after birth, so God was merciful to the individuals making up the society as well.

That's interesting. So actually there was nothing wrong at all with Mengele killing innocent people because they were in a constant state of rebellion against the Holy King of the Universe and all deserved deaths birth.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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?

Not gladly but it was the King of the Universe's command and Israel's role to be God's enforcer of capital punishment.

dm: Now lets look at your defense of this slaughter.

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.

No, it says in I Sam. 15:2 that it was an ambush. It says they laid in wait and probably attacked the weakest and most vulnerable because of the reputation of the hebrew soldiers.

dm: 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.

Those are not arbitary, the ancestor of is used because we know from God's natural revelation that the earth is very old. And my interpretation of Luke is based on the context of the entire bible. You can never take verses out of context, that is guaranteed to lead you to error in any text.

dm: Exodus says nothing about Amalek proudly harassing Hebrews. You just inserted this into the text.

That is true, but a rational assumption given the context.

dm: Pray tell, how do you get this from, "Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim."?

See above.

dm: Where does Exodus say they hated Yahweh?

We know from the rest of the Bible that all humans hate Yahweh/Christian God until they are converted. See Romans 3:10-18.

dm: 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".

See above.

dm: 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.

Then you plainly dont realize the magnitude of sin and the extreme holiness of God.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Not gladly but it was the King of the Universe's command and Israel's role to be God's enforcer of capital punishment.

You are responding to this:

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?
​

Would you do it willingly and gladly? You assure us you would not do it gladly.

Reminds me of a colleague who joked that people called him a dirty old man, but this is not true. He's not... old.

So we find that you would willingly thrust your sword (but not gladly).

I suppose that might be better than doing it willingly and gladly. The fact that you would not do it gladly means to me that, in your heart, you know this would be wrong.

And why would you kill this child? 1 Samuel 15 says the reason for the attack is that, 400 years earlier, there was a war, and her ancestors were on the opposite side of your ancestors.

Excuse me, but how can you possibly justify this as capital punishment?

And you are here to lecture us about morality?

No, it says in I Sam. 15:2 that it was an ambush.

Depends on the translation. But regardless, even if what a little girl's ancestors did 400 years earlier was a war crime, how can you possibly justify ignoring the screams of a three year old girl and thrusting your sword willingly through her heart?

It says they laid in wait and probably attacked the weakest and most vulnerable because of the reputation of the hebrew soldiers.

You forgot to mention that the Israelites were coming into their territory. I can almost hear the Amalekites: "Build that wall! Build that wall!".

So when aliens want to come into your country, you are saying that God doesn't want you to fight back? Good to know.

We know from the rest of the Bible that all humans hate Yahweh/Christian God until they are converted. See Romans 3:10-18.

I don't hate Yahweh. I just have no reason to believe he exists.

If a personal being created the universe, and wanted to talk to me, I would be thrilled. There would be no hatred.

Then you plainly dont realize the magnitude of sin and the extreme holiness of God.

You say this in response to the slaughter of children described in 1 Samuel 15. You assert that this massive slaughter of children was due to the holiness of God.

Sorry, I do not see that as holy. And the fact that you would do it, but not gladly, indicates to me that in your heart, you know that thrusting your sword through a sobbing 3 year old girl is not an act of holiness.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That was not an assault on the dignity of other humans. Because we are in a constant state of rebellion against the Holy King of the Universe, we all deserve death at birth. So actually God was being gracious and merciful by allowing their society 400 years to repent but they didnt and God decided their time was up. And most lived awhile after birth, so God was merciful to the individuals making up the society as well.

Your words almost scream that acts similar to the Holocaust are justified.

It is difficult to me to understand how a book that teaches this is required in order for me to condemn the Holocaust. One would think that one could come up with a better case against the Holocaust if he went to sources other than this book.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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?

All of these things can occur without violating any natural laws. For example, by violating Gods laws about not engaging in extramarital sex, you have a much greater chance of getting STDs. By violating Gods teaching about working for your food, you can starve. By violating Gods teaching about adultery, you can destroy your marriage. None of these curses for breaking His moral laws violate any natural law. By violating Gods laws about drinking to excess, you can damage your unborn child, ie the fruit of your body and so on.

dm: 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.

I didnt say Deuteronomy teaches it, but it certainly doesn't violate it as I have demonstrated above. I am referring to verses like Jeremiah 33:25 that says that the universe operates primarily by natural law and then just looking at the 13.8 billion years that the bible covers and counting the number of supernatural events occuring and it is actually quite small.

dm: 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?

No, I did not claim that by supporting theistic methodological naturalism is a sign Christianity is true, I just said it was positive outgrowth from Christianity that helped modern science be founded by Christians.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Oddball societies? At least you are more generous than your orange haired hero who would probably call them s------- countries.

That is two or three examples that prove you wrong. There are indeed multiple primitive societies that don't believe in any kind of the supernatural. So no, you cannot claim that your book is the only one that came up with the idea that the supernatural is not a big part of nature. Many primitive tribes knew that.

And besides, your book if filled with the supernatural. Read it.

How does two or three examples of very primitive unsuccessful societies that dont believe in God or the supernatural disprove that the hundreds of societies that do recognize God and the supernatural are much more successful? I dont deny that the bible contains periods of many supernatural events but most of them only occur during a 3500 year period out of the 13.8 billion years covered in the Bible.

dm: The complex computer programs that run genetic algorithms are designed. Of course. I was not talking about the design of the programs. I was talking about what they do. They take random solutions and evaluate them. Then they "marry" the best solutions together to get new solutions. Then they mutate some of the solutions and test them again. They continue to mutate and marry solutions. Eventually they often come up with novel solution that nobody ever thought of.

The point is that the process of random mutations with gene shuffling works and works well.

Yes, but they were programmed to do that, according to atheists, Nature was not.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Sure, but you used invalid arguments similar to this one:

The Argument from Cat Vomit
1. Some things in the universe (such as cat vomit) have a unity of diversity.
2. God is reported to have a unity of diversity.
3.Therefore, God.

​

What is the unity of cat vomit? But yes, God did indirectly create cat vomit and its vomiting reflex to help it survive in case it swallowed something poisonous. Actually pretty cool when you think about it. Nothing invalid about that!

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm afraid all you've managed to do is show that God is only "most likely" to exist if you're a Christian who believes in God already and is ready to the overlook all the holes in the "proofs" for God.

Well, So far neither you nor doubtingmerle have shown any holes.

 

[Ed1wolf]

First of all, other religions might have something to say about that! Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.
Second, and more importantly: it doesn't work like that. Just because you can't imagine an explanation for something, doesn't mean you're free to put forward an unsubstantiated one - much less that you are allowed to claim that this is the "most likely" one.
Seven hundred years ago, people said that illnesses were punishments or trials of faith sent by God, because no other explanation fitted the facts; a few hundred years ago, people said that the Earth was made by God a few millenia ago, because no other explanation fits the facts; and a few hours ago, you said that God was the most likely explanation for the universe because no other explanation fit the facts.
Your preferred explanation for something does not win by default. You have to give evidence. "If my God were real, it would account for the Universe's existence" is not evidence.

For many years, cosmologists didn't believe dark matter was real, but over time they started seeing all these effects that pointed toward dark matter being real and causing these effects. Now after more and more effects being discovered, most cosmologists now believe dark matter is real. So it is with God. The more characteristics we see in the universe that point toward God, the more we realize He is real especially those who take the extra step of initiating a relationship with Him.

ia: That's fine. So you've found something that matches those characteristics? Outside of a story, I mean?
Because from where I sit, the only "finding" that has been done of God is in stories, whether they come from the Bible or are stories of people's personal, unverifiable experiences.

The millions of people whose lives have been changed by the Christian God is evidence as I demonstrated earlier when we talked about your relationship with your friends. And the great positive influence of His word on the world is also to be expected if the Christian God is real. All these things combined with the evidences I mentioned earlier are strong inductive evidence that He is real.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All of these things can occur without violating any natural laws. For example, by violating Gods laws about not engaging in extramarital sex, you have a much greater chance of getting STDs. By violating Gods teaching about working...

Ah, the Jews had laws that promoted their health and well being. So did the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, and many others. How does this prove Christianity is special?

I didnt say Deuteronomy teaches it, but it certainly doesn't violate it as I have demonstrated above.

You are referring to methodological naturalism. Yes, Deuteronomy 28 teaches a world that violates the principles needed for methodological naturalism to work. I find it amazing that you can read this chapter and tell me it is talking about a world in which God rarely intervenes. For instance:

the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:...
The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: ...
The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses,...
And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods,...
The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season,...
The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke,...
The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish....
The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust:...
The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch,...
The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed,... (Deuteronomy 28)
​

I am sorry, but that is in no way consistent with the view that "the universe operates primarily by natural law"

And while we are in this chapter, don't forget Deuteronomy 28:53:

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
​

Which is just horrible. We looked at verses where the Bible nonchalantly mentions that mothers boiled and ate their children. Here is another verse claiming that this is normal during a siege--you eat your children.

Uh, no, mothers with a sense of dignity don't do that.

I am referring to verses like Jeremiah 33:25 that says that the universe operates primarily by natural law

OK, here is Jeremiah 33:25-26.

Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;​

Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.​

Uh, if the day/night cycle stops, then the kingdom won't happen.

Huh? If the day/night cycle stops tomorrow, I will give you $1,000. Awfully generous of me, huh?

Now if he had said if the day night cycle continues, then you get the kingdom, that would have been a significant promise. It is rather an odd formulation.

But anyway, it is difficult to see how you can see verses like this, and declare this to be a miraculous revelation. The readers already knew night and day happened.

and then just looking at the 13.8 billion years that the bible covers and counting the number of supernatural events occuring and it is actually quite small.

Looking at the last 2000 years, and adding up all the miracles claimed by Christians, that is quite high. I am guessing it comes out to many thousands per year.

No, I did not claim that by supporting theistic methodological naturalism is a sign Christianity is true, I just said it was positive outgrowth from Christianity that helped modern science be founded by Christians.

Got it. Only the Christians had a book that said day and night followed regular cycles. And they said, aha, then we should use methodological naturalism to discover science.

Not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What is the unity of cat vomit?

Ever taste it? I understand there is a unity of taste and texture, as well as a diversity.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well, So far neither you nor doubtingmerle have shown any holes.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Well, So far neither you nor doubtingmerle have shown any holes.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Or, to put it in slightly more Biblical terms: @doubtingmerle and I can only show you the door. You're the one who has to step through it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

For many years, cosmologists didn't believe dark matter was real, but over time they started seeing all these effects that pointed toward dark matter being real and causing these effects. Now after more and more effects being discovered, most cosmologists now believe dark matter is real. So it is with God. The more characteristics we see in the universe that point toward God, the more we realize He is real especially those who take the extra step of initiating a relationship with Him.

Cosmologists are coming to believe in dark matter because of the evidence for it. The evidence for God, on the other hand, is nothing we haven't been hearing for centuries, and none of it is very impressive. Which is why only people who already believe in God are impressed by it.

The millions of people whose lives have been changed by the Christian God is evidence as I demonstrated earlier when we talked about your relationship with your friends. And the great positive influence of His word on the world is also to be expected if the Christian God is real. All these things combined with the evidences I mentioned earlier are strong inductive evidence that He is real.

See what I mean about weak evidence? No, the millions of people whose lives have been changed by the Christian God are not evidence for His existence. Indeed, they're just what we would expect: religions tend to make people happier.
I don't suppose you consider the millions of people whose lives have been changed by Islam as evidence that Allah's word is the one truth. And you'd be right not to; it's ridiculously weak evidence. And so is yours.