nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C

Part 1 of The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy is available here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566

Thanks,
Plowman

...........................................

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A few questions spring to mind: why are these - the biggest land animals ever to live - never mentioned in the Bible? Did nobody notice them?

Here is a description of a Brontosaurus-like creature called 'behemoth' in Job 40:15-22

15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows by the brook surround him.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And why did god bother saving them from the flood and then make them go extinct anyway? And why did vegetarian dinosaurs have teeth that are clearly only useful for eating meat?

Sharp teeth are just as useful in shearing tough vegetation as they are in eating meat!!!!
Many creatures as well as the large Dinosaurs have gone extinct ... but we still have Crocodile 'Dinosurs' ... and Rhino ones!!!:)

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And - referring to the ridiculous video above - how did Noah go about gathering a pair of over 1 million species of insect? How did he catalogue and store them? (of course the number is far more than a million species, but I'm being gentle)

He didn't need to do anything about the insects ... some may have came on board themselves ... while others survived on floating vegetation, etc. It was only the 'higher' land animals that were specifically saved on the Ark .... and not the insects.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So many questions, so few plausible answers...

So few questions ... and all answered plausibly.:)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wow, quite a climbdown. Only a few posts ago you were making the assertion that we don't know if newborns were murdered, trying to say that todays man is more evil. And now it because they were better off! So God did kill innocent new born babies on nothing more than their parents had committed sin. So much for free-will!

Where is the 'climbdown'?
We don't know if any of the drowned people were newborns ... the hybrids possibly all were adults ... because of the infertility that typically occurs in hybrids between two species, no new children would have been born to the infertile hybrids that were produced, when the Nephalim took Human women as wives ... "all of which they chose", according to Gen 6:2.
Physically manifested fallen angels would be a different species allright .. and any hybrid progeny would be infertile ... rapidly leading to no new children being born, once their Human wives reached menopause.
Whatever the reason, there was one almighty problem ... whose only solution was the wiping out of most of the biosphere on Earth.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely you must think that God was already involved in getting him to be to the most powerful man on earth? Why do you think that you praying is going to make any difference to Gods plan?

Prayer can affect not only God's plan ... but the plans of others (and Donald Trumps own critical decisions) as well.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would God allow a person to get to that point if they weren't there for good, I mean if you believe he actually can interfere in the first place. Why didn't he stop evil happening before?

There is an interaction of free will here between God, Trump, his supporters and his detractors ... and prayer can influence them all.
For example, the pseudo-liberals might start behaving as the tolerant liberals they claim to be ... and wouldn't that be a miracle, allright !!:eek:

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

We don't know if newborns were actually drowned in the Flood ... but we do know that unborns are being killed now.

Good grief...

Looking at all the unfounded slurs on the man ... that the 'psuedo-liberal' media churn out, you'd think he was head of a 'tin pot' failed state ... rather than the freely elected president of 'The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave' ... so lets look at just one of the claims above, that he is a 'racist demagogue', no less !!!:eek:
... and the source of this allegation ...

Freely elected by the very mankind you've being decrying the wickedness of.
You're for him because your against the liberals who you consider the antiChrist.

It's certainly the case that the liberal agenda is wringing his foibles for all they are worth. It's certainly the case that the liberal media are maintaining his foibles at the head of the news.

It's certainly case that the man is a buffoon of the very highest order.

Yes, Trump is a straight talker who tells us exactly what he is thinking ... and whether we like to hear it, or not ... he is a refreshing change from the 'professional' politicians, talking for hours and saying nothing ... that many people have come to reject.

The same could be said for Hitler.

Trump indeed isn't saying nothing, the trouble is with what he is saying.

J C

antiskeptic wrote: »

Good grief...

You could say that allright.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Freely elected by the very mankind you've being decrying the wickedness of.
You're for him because your against the liberals who you consider the antiChrist.

I'm not against liberals ... I'm a liberal myself.
However, the pseudo-liberals are a different thing entirely ... they protest their liberal leanings ... but they only behave liberally towards those who agree with them ... and they have no problem persecuting those with whom they disagree. The very definition of illiberalism actually.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's certainly the case that the liberal agenda is wringing his foibles for all they are worth. It's certainly the case that the liberal media are maintaining his foibles at the head of the news.

... thereby revealing their biases, in the most obvious of ways.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's certainly case that the man is a buffoon of the very highest order.

Lets just say that diplomacy isn't his strong point ... but everyone has their weaknesses. However, most times, straight talking works ... and it seems to be having the desired effect on 'rocketman'
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea/north-korea-agrees-to-talk-to-south-after-u-s-south-korea-postpone-drills-idUSKBN1EU06O

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same could be said for Hitler.

I'll not dignify that piece of godwinning with a response.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Trump indeed isn't saying nothing, the trouble is with what he is saying.

Where is the trouble with what he is saying?
Every country in the world controls who is allowed to enter ... many far more stringently than the USA.
... and its time that the 'secular anti-faith tide' that has been sweeping the Western world ... is rolled back a bit TBH!!

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

Newtons First Law is only valid in inertial frames of reference but it remains valid as such.

As such. Valid until such time as an area of invalidity is found, after which it's limited to a frame of reference.

The Law of Biogenesis, no more than any other Law of Science, doesn't bar scientific investigations aimed at invalidating it ... but to date, all of the many investigations aimed at invalidating it haven't succeeded in doing so.

True. But you've been utilising the law as a way of declaring the impossibility of the notion of life from non life. You've been holding up the law as inviolable when it isn't.

... and it isn't even remotely comparable with established science Laws. like the Law of Gravity ... or the Laws of Thermodynamics and Biogenesis ... that completely refute the Theory that pondkind evolved into mankind spontaneously.

The laws don't refute anything. They sit there awaiting the day they are overturned, should that occur.

The supposed mechanisms for pondkind to mankind evolution simply don't exist ... and the impossibility of the spontaneous generation of life is enshrined in the Scientific Law of Biogenesis.

Impossibility. Enshrined. This is how you've been using the law.

The Law of Biogenesis equally rules out the spontaneous generation of life at any time.

At any time. Immutable. Invoilable. Never ever changing.

-

This, from a few recent posts JC. I'll assume you've been misrepresenting the law of biogenesis ever since you first heard of it. Your claiming it to be an authority when it's actually a subject. Subject to whatever science happens to find next. Science finds something, and the law can disappear in a puff of smoke.

Some Law!

I have never said the it bars investigations ... just that the Law of Biogenesis currently invalidates all theories on the spontaneous generation of life.

The law doesn't invalidate anything. It's the lack of contrary observation which validates the law.

You say right above that spontaneous generation is ruled out. If that was a scientific position then no science would be investigating the area. It's not a scientific position though, it's hubris.

So far it is immutable ... and all evidence to date indicates that it will remain immutable ... but good luck trying !!:D

Immutable isn't open to being changed. God is immutable, for example. There's no "so far" about it.

The evidence to date says nothing at all, positive or negative about the chances of the law being invalidated (or valid within a frame of reference). Even more so when it comes to a nodal point of investigation like abiogenesis: so what that the relatively humdrum life-thereafter is found to spring from life. Apples and pears.

Leroy42

so you are going to stick by your assertion that God didn't murder newborns because of some non evidenced massive decline in birthrate for some unknown reason prior to the flood (which surely would have led to the ending of human life with a few decades and raises the question of why god would therefore need a flood at all), or
if he did then it was better for them as earth was a terrible place anyway. yet you decry others for killing unborns? why are gods morals acceptable but the same if evil in man?

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

so you are going to stick by your assertion that God didn't murder newborns because of some non evidenced massive decline in birthrate for some unknown reason prior to the flood (which surely would have led to the ending of human life with a few decades and raises the question of why god would therefore need a flood at all),

Humans had fallen with Adam and Eve ... and as we now know, God planned to redeem Humanity with the incarntion, death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ, who was true God and true man ... and therefore able to satisfy both the justice and mercy aspects to forgiving sin.
If Human life ended, about the time of the Flood, this would have made God's plan for the Salvation of mankind impossible ... and that is why, IMO, He intervened directly with the Flood.

Leroy42 wrote: »

or
if he did then it was better for them as earth was a terrible place anyway. yet you decry others for killing unborns? why are gods morals acceptable but the same if evil in man?

God created us ... so He has the power of life and death over us ... we didn't create ourselves ... so we don't have the power of life and death over ourselves ... and when we take this Divine power to ourselves we are behaving immorally (if we are Compos Mentis at the time).
... and therein lies a critical difference between whether you believe that we were created ... or were spontaneously generated.

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

You could say that allright.

I could have come up with a somewhat heavier-weight expletive.

You put in your thumb and pull out the plumb of "we don't know whether there were infants around" immediately prior to the flood as a (valid) response to someone wondering why the apparently high moral horse?

Are we truly to assume that unless the Bible positively states the patently obvious then that obvious is open to question. Sufficiently open to suppose that a valid response?

I'm not against liberals ... I'm a liberal myself.
However, the pseudo-liberals are a different thing entirely ... they protest their liberal leanings ... but they only behave liberally towards those who agree with them ... and they have no problem persecuting those with whom they disagree. The very definition of illiberalism actually.

I'm not arguing for the anti-Trumpers position, whatever the hue. I'm merely astonished you'd hitch yourself to him in any positive way. The guy is a patent creep on any number of fronts.

You don't have to support him as a way of decrying something else you don't like. You can not like any of it.

I'll not dignify that piece of godwinning with a response.

A ho-ho-ho response.

The point stands. What you posit as a positive needn't be a positive. It wasn't in Hitlers case and probably hasn't been the case (should I bother to look) in any number of other people who figured out the formula that would appeal to the disaffected

Where is the trouble with what he is saying?

If you can't discern what's wrong with what he's saying then there isn't a person on earth who will be able to show you. He is the most powerful case against himself.

(D'ya know when we're talking to unbelievers, trying to convince and defend and promote the real vs. cardboard cut out view of God. And they just don't get it. And we remember: they are blind and simply cannot see?. Well something similar seems to be going on with you and Trump)

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

We don't know if newborns were actually drowned in the Flood ... but we do know that unborns are being killed now.

J C wrote: »

We don't know if any of the drowned people were newborns ... the hybrids possibly all were adults ... because of the infertility that typically occurs in hybrids between two species, no new children would have been born to the infertile hybrids that were produced, when the Nephalim took Human women as wives ...

These are two of your posts about the flood and the murder of the innocent by your god based on nothing more than the apparent sins of their parents.

You start of with some assertion that it is not possible to kow if newborns were killed, and then try to make it out that today is much worse.

But of course you don't have any basis on which to make such a claim. You try to make some claim about hybrids (!) and that no children were being born anyway. I assume you have some evidence of this, of this this just another one of your "beliefs".

Your god, if you believe the Noah story, murdered everyone expect for a select few. A portion of those must, based on what is clearly evident in terms of how humans grow, have been newborns and children. Innocent, but condemned to death by drowning by a vengeful and uncaring god, but apparently because it was better for them.

When I asked about why those morals are somehow superior to man morals in the killing of unborns you stated.

God created us ... so He has the power of life and death over us

. So he basically owns us and can do whatever he wants with us. Sort of like the slave owners used to think!

Of course many people don't believe that god created us, rather that the parents created life. Based on your morals they are quite entitled to then kill not only the unborn but also the born, because they own them. The only difference in the positions is who is the ultimate owner, the murder itself is not an issue to you.

Finally, you attempt to simply ignore a post because it mentions Hitler is childish. Hitler is an example of evil in the world. Simply ignoring a point because of a name!

Your position is that we should pray to God to help Trump make the right decisions. But for that to work, then God must interact directly with Trump. Whether that be simply by giving him a sign, an ability to understand. But it that is possible, then why would god not do the same with the likes of Hitler?

Do you think people didn't pray for God to help with the evil of Hitler? Was your god not capable of doing anything, or choose not to?

Asking for prayer to make a difference means you think God can make a difference, but when he doesn't its simply free will of man. So gods power cannot overcome free-will, except it can when Adam eats the apple or when god wants to murder children in a flood!

c_man

I'm not aware of any Christian denomination which doesn't practice in, or teach on the effect of prayer.

Leroy42

c_man wrote: »

I'm not aware of any Christian denomination which doesn't practice in, or teach on the effect of prayer.

I'm am not aware of any christian denomination which doesn't teach the belief in Jesus, doesn't make it true though.

So go on then, tell us the effect of prayer.

You know, some evidence that it makes any difference. Also, what type of prayers are answered? Is it only social wide ones like end hunger, or is more selfish ones like 'give Marcy a pimple for prom".

Can prayers only be answered if it doesn't affect someone elses free will?

c_man

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm am not aware of any christian denomination which doesn't teach the belief in Jesus, doesn't make it true though.

This is the Christianity forum though, asking someone to "prove" that would be pretty stupid.

So go on then, tell us the effect of prayer.

As obvious as it is that it's communication with God (and/or the Saints if you're RC) and building a relationship with Him, it's got meditative and contemplative properties by the mile.

Give it a try some time!

Leroy42

c_man wrote: »

This is the Christianity forum though, asking someone to "prove" that would be pretty stupid.

To prove that prayer works? Really? I get that you christians cvan hide behind not having proof that God exists but no proof that prayer works? Isn't that the same as saying that there is no evidence that it does? So why bother praying for something which there is not any evidence that it makes any difference?

c_man wrote: »

As obvious as it is that it's communication with God (and/or the Saints if you're RC) and building a relationship with Him, it's got meditative and contemplative properties by the mile.

Give it a try some time!

Its obvious that its communication with God? Which God?

Why do you think he wants to build a relationship with you. And why is that relationship dependent on you asking him for stuff, and him granting it to you.

No doubting the meditative and contemplative properties, but they can all be achieved without the need for God. Why is prayer better than mindfulness for example?

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

..like the slave owners used to think!

This objection assumes (for the sake of itself) that God exists, so I'll run with that assumption to explore the problem with the objection.

-

The maker of something, who uses his own materials and skills is, in the first instance, the rightful owner of the product he makes. Any objection you might have, which utilises ethics, legality, etc are objections that have no absolute basis - they fly only insofar as mankind shares your view.

Mankind can't, independently from it's creator, generate a view which trumps the view of the Creator. Not because he's more powerful, but because we are not independent of him such as to find foundations for our argument apart from him.

You would be trying to hang the Creator with a noose who's other end is attached to the Creator.

The usual objection is that free-willed being have that detachment, such as to judge independently of the Creator. That only works if the free will is enabled for that purpose. If it's not, that is, if the free will is constrained to work within limits, then you're back to the paragraph above.

Leroy42

antiskeptic wrote: »

This objection assumes (for the sake of itself) that God exists, so I'll run with that assumption to explore the problem with the objection.

-

The maker of something, who uses his own materials and skills is, in the first instance, the rightful owner of the product he makes. Any objection you might have, which utilises ethics, legality, etc are objections that have no absolute basis - they fly only insofar as mankind shares your view.

Not entirely true. Certainly in the case of inanimate objects you are completely correct but are you really sawing that should we ever get to the stage of being able to develop life from a lab then whomever creates it can destroy it? Not a practicable question at the present time I'll admit, but one which will possibly be a moral question in the future.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mankind can't, independently from it's creator, generate a view which trumps the view of the Creator. Not because he's more powerful, but because we are not independent of him such as to find foundations for our argument apart from him.

You would be trying to hang the Creator with a noose who's other end is attached to the Creator.

You have lost me a bit here tbh. My understanding of what you are saying is that mankind cannot judge God because we are God (or part of him, I don't we are gods). Is that right?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The usual objection is that free-willed being have that detachment, such as to judge independently of the Creator. That only works if the free will is enabled for that purpose. If it's not, that is, if the free will is constrained to work within limits, then you're back to the paragraph above.

The point I am trying to make it that JC deems it acceptable that God can murder newborns and unborns on the basis that they would only sin anyway or that the earth (that God created) is terrible place anyway and they are better off dead.

First, that begs the question why God did not have the power to redeem the sinners rather than simply kill everyone (including all the animals which surely had nothing to do with any of this). Second, if ones deems it ok that God did that, based on him being the creator, then surely one must deem it acceptable for people to treat their own children any way they see fit since they may believe that they created them.

The only difference in the moral justification is ones belief of who "owns" the life one is about to take.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not entirely true. Certainly in the case of inanimate objects you are completely correct but are you really sawing that should we ever get to the stage of being able to develop life from a lab then whomever creates it can destroy it? Not a practicable question at the present time I'll admit, but one which will possibly be a moral question in the future.

I can see the moral problem** in the event man creates man: the lab would merely be copying the natural processes which already sees man produce man. It's not the process of his production which produce inalienable rights (witness abortion), it's his existence. The created life is on a par with us because of that and enjoys whatever we enjoy.

We do need to define our terms though.

Producing life: although we might produce life, we don't own all the processes involved in the production of it. Rather we manipulate the natural world, relying on a myriad of natural process (atomic forces, gravity, biomolecular interactions ... of which have nothing to do with us.

Creating life: where each and every aspect of it: the raw materials, the physical laws, etc., all stem from within yourself. That gives you intrinsic ownership. There is nothing at all about it that doesn't stem from within you. Indeed, because all of it stems from you, it is intrinsic to you until such time as you designate it separated from you. Since it is God who designates our life as something separated from himself, he also gets to set the T&C's regarding the degree and confines of separatedness. He giveth and can rightfully, taketh away

You have lost me a bit here tbh. My understanding of what you are saying is that mankind cannot judge God because we are God (or part of him, I don't we are gods). Is that right?

That we suppose life (man's life) of supreme value is something imbued in us by our Creator. He instilled that in us because he considers us of supreme value and because he wants us to treat each other according to the objective value we have. I'm continuing to assume God exists for the purposes of discussion.

We can't use the sense he's instilled in us, regarding treatment of each other, as something that he is identically bound to. He has other aims regarding us that make acceptable, his dealing with us other than he says we ought deal with each other.

We have no basis for turning the sense he instilled in us regarding our treatment of each other, towards his treatment of us. In order for us to do so, he would have to grant/have granted us the capacity to do so. If he hasn't, then our assuming we can hoist him by the petard which only applies to our dealing with each other, is hollow, misdirected.

The point I am trying to make it that JC deems it acceptable that God can murder newborns and unborns on the basis that they would only sin anyway or that the earth (that God created) is terrible place anyway and they are better off dead.

Murder is unlawful killing, so the unlawfulness of God killing anyone would have first to be established before those charges could be laid. Other than that, I think JC's rationale (assuming you are reflecting it accurately) is pretty poor.

As an aside: I've started reading an interesting book recently which attempts to reconcile the warlike attributes of the OT God with the dove like NT God*. Long story short: God doesn't desire killing or sacrifices and the like. Rather he takes a pagan people and gradually steers them in the direction he wants them to go in - according to their ability to evolve and mature in that direction.

An example would be sacrifices. This people are used to sacrificing to pagan god's before God choses them. And so, as a first step, he has them sacrifice offerings to him. Stepwise, as one would guide a child, rather than simply coming down heavy and supposing instant turnaround.

This ties in with the NT process of sanctification (the process starting at new birth and which aims to steer the new believer more and more into the image of Christ). Now, you could use the cardboard cutout of God and ask why an omnipotent being could just bring about the transformation overnight. But it would fly in the face of the drumbeat of scripture: God urging, wanting, desiring but not forcing.

First, that begs the question why God did not have the power to redeem the sinners rather than simply kill everyone (including all the animals which surely had nothing to do with any of this).

God hasn't the power to redeem sinners with the sinners say so. Regarding the flood, I'll have to finish the above book first

Second, if ones deems it ok that God did that, based on him being the creator, then surely one must deem it acceptable for people to treat their own children any way they see fit since they may believe that they created them.

Answered above I think. What is and what is believed are two different things.

* a bit of a simplification. The OT God displays a lot of tenderness, pain-at-our-pain and forebearing in a lot of places. Jesus, though an admired model for mankind, was the one in the NT who spoke most about Hell and the casting out into darkness where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Nevertheless, the disconnect between the two God's who are the same needs reconciling one way or the other

** I can see the moral problem. That's because I suppose us subject to laws which arise outside ourself. I don't see how an atheist necessarily has to see a moral problem. The laws stem from within mankind and are, per definition, subject to be changed as seen fit. It becomes then a matter of personal preference. The same kind of thing applies to the abortion debate.

J C

antiskeptic wrote: »

The evidence to date says nothing at all, positive or negative about the chances of the law being invalidated (or valid within a frame of reference). Even more so when it comes to a nodal point of investigation like abiogenesis: so what that the relatively humdrum life-thereafter is found to spring from life. Apples and pears.

The Law of Biogenesis is still valid i.e. scientific observations haven't invalidated it ... so the belief in the spontaneous generation of life is in the realm of a belief in gnomes at the bottom of your garden.:)

Thanks Antiskeptic, for your answers on the ownership by God of His Creation.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

The Law of Biogenesis is still valid i.e. scientific observations haven't invalidated it ... so the belief in the spontaneous generation of life is in the realm of a belief in gnomes at the bottom of your garden.:)

Thanks Antiskeptic, for your answers on the ownership by God of His Creation.

On the same vein

The the big bang theory is still valid i.e. creationist observations haven't invalidated it ... so the belief in "god" is in the realm of a belief in gnomes at the bottom of your garden.:)

Thanks JC, for admitting that the big bang theory is as valid as your "god" theory

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The the big bang theory is still valid i.e. creationist observations haven't invalidated it ... so the belief in "god" is in the realm of a belief in gnomes at the bottom of your garden.:)

The Big Bang theory overwhelmingly counters the creationist viewpoint. It has nothing at all to say whether God exists or not and so, invalidates not, belief in God

Timber indeed.

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

The Law of Biogenesis is still valid i.e. scientific observations haven't invalidated it ... so the belief in the spontaneous generation of life is in the realm of a belief in gnomes at the bottom of your garden.:)

I was countering your use of the law to render the notion of life from non life a non-starter. You've used the law in that way any number of times.

I can understand the belief people would have in spontaneous generation if they lack a theistic worldview. It's a logical conclusion (especially in light of ToE) and a person is not being unreasonable in supposing that the case, even if awaiting scientific confirmation.

The law of biogenesis oughtn't to have any impact on that faith position - given the law has nothing to say about the likelyhood or otherwise of S.G. I'm not sure what you mean by it being "valid" given it places no restraint on the science looking in that direction.

Thanks Antiskeptic, for your answers on the ownership by God of His Creation.

Thanks JC. I've never understood the difficulty folk have with the idea. Emotionally difficult, yes, but not rationally.

Leroy42

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks JC. I've never understood the difficulty folk have with the idea. Emotionally difficult, yes, but not rationally.

I don't have any difficulty with idea, I understand it completely. The notion that all of this, the universe, us, all living things, came from something, was designed and preordained is certainly compelling.

The human need to think that we are special, that what we do is important, that there is more than just this life and the unfairness of this life will be balance by some great legal system in the heavens.

But that is all it is. An idea. It has no more standing than thinking it we are just a strange happenstance. So basing any position you may, or may not hold, on the basis of something that is made up (as far as we can tell) is bizarre. To then argue about what qualities this made up deity may have, and how they go about operating these powers seems quite a step.

We are, recently, discussing the murdering of young innocent children by this deity and that, due to them creating us they have every right to do whatever they want, but that parents do not have the same right despite the fact that they created the life of their child. One of course can argue that its not the parents but nature, but then surely that argument can be used for all the young people than your God killed. The belief is that he created Adam and Eve, nature did the rest.

To then take the view that anybody with a different idea is wrong on the basis that their idea isn't the one that you were taught is baffling.

So it is not a difficulty with the idea of a god, it is an appreciation that it is no more than an idea and should be treated as such. We don't pray to string theory, or give special status to the leader of the multi-verse belief organisation. We don't tell people how to live their lives based on the Spagetti Monster, or teach our kids to pray to leprechauns at the end of the garden.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't have any difficulty with idea, I understand it completely. The notion that all of this, the universe, us, all living things, came from something, was designed and preordained is certainly compelling.

The human need to think that we are special, that what we do is important, that there is more than just this life and the unfairness of this life will be balance by some great legal system in the heavens.

But that is all it is. An idea. It has no more standing than thinking it we are just a strange happenstance. So basing any position you may, or may not hold, on the basis of something that is made up (as far as we can tell) is bizarre. To then argue about what qualities this made up deity may have, and how they go about operating these powers seems quite a step.

Remember from whence we came:

Leroy42 wrote:

The point I am trying to make it that JC deems it acceptable that God can murder newborns and unborns on the basis that they would only sin anyway or that the earth (that God created) is terrible place anyway and they are better off dead.

First, that begs the question why God did not have the power to redeem the sinners rather than simply kill everyone (including all the animals which surely had nothing to do with any of this). Second, if ones deems it ok that God did that, based on him being the creator, then surely one must deem it acceptable for people to treat their own children any way they see fit since they may believe that they created them.

The only difference in the moral justification is ones belief of who "owns" the life one is about to take.

You are raising an objection to the actions of God. You don't have to believe he exists on order to raise that objection. You are assuming, for the purposes raising the objection, that God exists. It can be, from your perspective, a thought-experiment and nothing more.

And I can respond on that basis, assuming God exists for the sake of argument. Whether or not I believe in God or not doesn't make any difference. An atheist could make the same points that I made - assuming God exists for the sake of argument.

But that is all it is. An idea. It has no more standing than thinking it we are just a strange happenstance. So basing any position you may, or may not hold, on the basis of something that is made up (as far as we can tell) is bizarre

As far as you can tell. There is no need for me to be bound to same process of evaluation that you are. Continuing the though experiment (assuming God exists for the sake of discussion)

The means whereby God manifests himself need have nothing to do with empirical evidence. IF it is the case that there are spiritual antennae AND it is the case that some have this spiritual antennae turned on, on rebirth, THEN no issue that some detect God loud and clear and others do not. The continued insistence "no empirical evidence" affects not one jot, the THEN conclusion.

One can go round the houses on this but ultimately, the notion that empirical evidence is the surest way to conclude the truth or otherwise of an observation, is a philosophical one only. It is not something that can be demonstrated to be true.

Simply supposing that the only way that God could evidence himself is via the empirical, and if not empirical then no basis for my position is just that: simply supposing.

We are, recently, discussing the murdering of young innocent children by this deity and that, due to them creating us they have every right to do whatever they want, but that parents do not have the same right despite the fact that they created the life of their child. One of course can argue that its not the parents but nature, but then surely that argument can be used for all the young people than your God killed. The belief is that he created Adam and Eve, nature did the rest.

I've raised an objection to the use of the word "murder". Before continuing with it's use, you would need to counter the objection. You can't do as JC often does and simply assume your position true

I have pointed out the difference between creation and production so perhaps we ought isolate the word creation for use with God only. It helps keep things precise?

I'm not quite sure of the point you're making in the italicised bit. Could you elaborate?

To then take the view that anybody with a different idea is wrong on the basis that their idea isn't the one that you were taught is baffling.

Again, you are engaging in a JC-type approach. You are not dealing with the argument as it is presented you. It is okay that you personally feel that I have been taught what I posit. But it is not okay to suppose that for the purposes of argumentation.

Certainly, my understanding of the God-set up is informed by the Bible (but not solely so, the Bible, for instance, doesn't specifically make the legal argument about possession of goods that I make). But overarching that is a personal encounter with this God. It's that which gives the Bible credence for me. You can argue about personal encounter but you can't suppose I hold what I hold simply because someone else told me and I'm undergoing a white-coat syndrome or holding what I hold to simply because I have a need to.

So it is not a difficulty with the idea of a god, it is an appreciation that it is no more than an idea and should be treated as such. We don't pray to string theory, or give special status to the leader of the multi-verse belief organisation. We don't tell people how to live their lives based on the Spagetti Monster, or teach our kids to pray to leprechauns at the end of the garden.

Again, there's a royal "we" here that hasn't been established by you. "No more than", for you. Not necessarily for me. At least, you haven't shown the necessity for it, rather, you assume it.

J C

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was countering your use of the law to render the notion of life from non life a non-starter. You've used the law in that way any number of times.

It is legitimate to use an established scientific Law to counter an Hypothesis that is in contradiction with the Law ... and it is definitive (to say that the hypothesis remains invalid), for as long as the Law remains valid.
... and the Law would become invalid if the Hypothesis were to be proven to be true ... thus all Theories of Spontaneous Generation are invalidated by the Law of Biogenesis - and it is scientifically legitimate to point this out.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can understand the belief people would have in spontaneous generation if they lack a theistic worldview. It's a logical conclusion (especially in light of ToE) and a person is not being unreasonable in supposing that the case, even if awaiting scientific confirmation.

A belief in Spontaneous Generation is certainly an unfounded belief, at best ... which means that its quite ironic when assorted evolutionists of the secular and theistic varieties scoff at Creation Science ... which is well founded and based on real evidence that an inordinate intelligence created life.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The law of biogenesis oughtn't to have any impact on that faith position - given the law has nothing to say about the likelyhood or otherwise of S.G. I'm not sure what you mean by it being "valid" given it places no restraint on the science looking in that direction.

Its analagous to Creation Science citing the Laws of Gravity as supporting the idea that somebody jumping from a height will fall and hurt themselves ... and another group saying that evidence to invalidate the Laws of Gravity may well be found in the future, given that 'it places no restraint on science looking in that direction'.

Good luck with that ... is all I'll say !!!:)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks JC. I've never understood the difficulty folk have with the idea. Emotionally difficult, yes, but not rationally.

I agree.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

On the same vein

The the big bang theory is still valid i.e. creationist observations haven't invalidated it ... so the belief in "god" is in the realm of a belief in gnomes at the bottom of your garden.:)

Thanks JC, for admitting that the big bang theory is as valid as your "god" theory

Unfortunately the Big Bang Theory ... is just that ... a Theory ... and not a Law.
It states that first there was nothing ... and then it spontaneoulsy blew up.

The alternative theory is that first there was God ... and then He directly created everything.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Unfortunately the
The alternative theory is that first there was God ... and He directly created everything.

Still a theory

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Still a theory

... but a much better founded theory than it's competitor, that 'first there was nothing ... and then it blew up'!!!:)

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

... but a much better founded theory than it's competitor, that 'first there was nothing ... and then it blew up'!!!:)

In your opinion.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

In your opinion.

... and objectively true.

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

... but a much better founded theory than it's competitor, that 'first there was nothing ... and then it blew up'!!!:)

☺

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can see the moral problem** in the event man creates man: the lab would merely be copying the natural processes which already sees man produce man. It's not the process of his production which produce inalienable rights (witness abortion), it's his existence. The created life is on a par with us because of that and enjoys whatever we enjoy.

We do need to define our terms though.

Producing life: although we might produce life, we don't own all the processes involved in the production of it. Rather we manipulate the natural world, relying on a myriad of natural process (atomic forces, gravity, biomolecular interactions ... of which have nothing to do with us.

Creating life: where each and every aspect of it: the raw materials, the physical laws, etc., all stem from within yourself. That gives you intrinsic ownership. There is nothing at all about it that doesn't stem from within you. Indeed, because all of it stems from you, it is intrinsic to you until such time as you designate it separated from you. Since it is God who designates our life as something separated from himself, he also gets to set the T&C's regarding the degree and confines of separatedness. He giveth and can rightfully, taketh away

So were we to create a truly self-aware artificial intelligence using our own processes and materials how do we treat that entity? It seems plausible that this will be the case in the not too distant future. While granting Sophia citizenship of SA last year seems very much to be a publicity stunt it does indicate the direction we're moving in. Given we've got AIs at this stage that can pass the Turing test it seems reasonable to assume we'll see continuing progress in this field and will soon reach the stage where experts in the fields of psychology and linguistics will be unable to differentiate human intelligence from artificial intelligence. If we're unable to empirically distinguish human intelligence from AI, what measure do we use to prove one is self aware where the other isn't?

If we put ourselves in the role of creator, where does that leave God?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

If we put ourselves in the role of creator, where does that leave God?

\
We already create human beings, smacl, by the old-fashioned method. It has all kinds of ethical implications, but I don't see that it calls God's situation into question. And the same will apply if we create self-aware artificial intelligence.