Religion… What do you think?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

And you deliberately misunderstand me to create an argument

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28652  Edited By FlashFyr

@spareheadone: I might've actually taken that last message seriously if you'd given an example instead of making a bald ass accusation.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

You have invented the contingency on biological life and you are attempting to transfer it onto me.

I simply used our sentience as an example of God/Universes sentience.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: You gave no traits past "God is one being and made up of many egos." You haven't given any indication of what that "one being" actually is. When asked, you refuse. When throwing around "sentience," you don't explain any sentience past our own. When asked what happens when we take away the egos, you said you don't know. This is more your fault than it is mine.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

No it's definitely your fault entirely

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: You keep believing that, bud. I guess the difference between you and I is that I give reasons while you just believe stuff.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

I give reasons when I can

When I can't I don't

All I can do with your hypothetical question is give hypothetical answers.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28658  Edited By FlashFyr

@spareheadone: And you give everyone truth claims when you can't give reasons and/or even define your god basically. Then you'll accuse other people of deliberately misunderstanding your failed attempts at pseudo-Hindu parable language that use random, undefined vocabulary. Real paragon of intellectual honesty.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250015

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Is The Kalam Cosmological Argument Really Strong Evidence For GOD ? I have heard people say that it is but it seems to be lacking. It seems to have holes where it does not get us to a Divine Creator but a potential Force that started this Reality we live in.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28662  Edited By FlashFyr

@king_saturn: Kalam = god of the gaps fallacy. Seriously, Sean Carroll (an actual physicist) absolutely thrashed William Lane Craig over it (the guy who popularized that argument).

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

@flashfyr: knows something of eternal universe models.

I

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250015

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr said:

@king_saturn: Kalam = god of the gaps fallacy. Seriously, Sean Carroll (an actual physicist) absolutely thrashed William Lane Craig over it (the guy who popularized that argument).

Muslims also use it quite a bit. I heard Muhammad Hijab use it in discussions with Atheists as well. I think William Lane Craig has his own spin on Kalam. I always thought it interesting though, because once they get to The Universe has a Cause in the premises thats when the position shifts to that cause must be the Spaceless, Timeless, Eternal, All Powerful Creator. It seems like a heavy jump. Special Pleading I believe they call it.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28665  Edited By FlashFyr

@king_saturn: I'm pretty sure Hijab used it after Craig, considering Craig started this whole thing in the 70s (?). The special pleading fallacy is to make a generalization but note one exception to save the argument. In the case of Kalam, theists argue that everything demands a cause but God doesn't. Or in the case of argument from complexity, the universe is too complex to form on its own so God needs to do it. However, God would naturally be more complex than the universe itself so he would also need a creator if we apply that logic, and then special pleading happens when theists go, "No no no God is super complex but he's the exception."

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

So heat death equilibrium needing a push from the Quantum Messiah.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

Do you reckon the universe of matter and energy is a closed system?

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28669  Edited By SpareHeadOne

@flashfyr:

If it was your field, what would you say?

: D

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: I don't make truth claims about things I don't/can't know.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28672  Edited By FlashFyr

@spareheadone: You're asking me what I would say if I were in that field, which is a question that implies I'd have some certainty. If we're talking about probability, flip a coin and that's my answer until there's a better way to determine where I'm more likely to go in the yes/no direction.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7649

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28674  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“How is the Information missing, if we have the Information from 1 Chronicles 21 that the He is Satan ? 2 Samuel 24 technically is not missing Information anyways as Satan can technically be working under GOD's law anyways.”

As explained in the paragraph that you're quoting, 1 Chronicles 21:1 is chronicling 2 Samuel 24:1. 1 Chronicles 21:1 introduces Satan in reference to 2 Samuel 24:1, where there was no mention of Satan in 2 Samuel 24 in the version of the Bible that we have today. From this, we can make a logical extension that material is missing from the part of 2 Sameul 24 that is called 2 Samuel 24:1 today.

And, also, in church this past Sunday, my pastor mentioned something that could explain what I was getting at: back in the 1700s, the Bible was known to have been edited to remove some material, as a version of the Bible was given to Africans during the slave trade which had edited material from the Bible; so, we now have another basis to imagine that, this editing material from the Bible, had occurred before the 1700s and since the 1700s, where mistakes were apparently made during the editing process, as God caused this mistake to insure that we can still know His Word in some way. Thank God for that bit of new material that can now allow me to move from conjecture by logical extensions.

“You do know that "And" is a compound conjunction right ? Like if I said, Mr. Majestic was angry with Krypton and Superman was protecting Krypton from adversaries. How would you assume that Mr. Majestic was angry with Krypton before Superman was protecting it just because the subject of Majestic being angry with Krypton is first in the statement ?”

We know here that it isn't the case because of the differences in context and how your version goes against what the Bible teaches about God's true character. The census just followed in time after existing sin by the Israelites, based on the earlier verses in 2 Samuel 24 that I quoted. In this context, it couldn't logical be read to see it was occurring at the same time; the census came later in time. With this, we get help from 1 Chronicles 21:1 again.

“Also, when you consider that the Chronicler actually says that GOD was displeased with David after he numbered Israel and smote Israel because of this. It's pretty clear that the text is saying that GOD punished Israel because of David's sin.”

2 Samuel 24:1 had already made clear that Israel was in sin; plus, God can multitask; as such, God punished Israel for their existing sin, through Joab, warned David not to go through with the census, David proceeded anyway, so God punished Israel for their sin, David for his indiscretion, and each individual Israelite for each of their sins.

“What am I altering ? Did I not explain what I was saying well enough for you to understand above ?”

As you should be able to gather from what you quoted, you altered the sequence of events from the plain text of the Scripture rather than just concede the points.

“If the Information needed is given, how is it missing information ? Like, how is it you are not seeing this ?”

I demonstrated that I understood how you were altering the plain text in order to peddle misinformation; I explained my justification for concluding that information was missing, as the chronicler describing Satan's involvement, where the chronicler was making reference to 2 Samuel 24:1.

“This is all your Conjecture, no where in the text do we have anything about GOD judging Achan's family or moral intent. However, we do see in Joshua 7 that GOD held all of Israel accountable for Achan's sin as it is explained and GOD had Achan and his sons and daughters killed for his own sin that he confessed.”

Considering that you can't treat God as if He is another person, this isn't mere conjecture; God has the ability to multitask based on more than just one objective and motivation. You're departing from what the Bible teaches about the character of God and trying to make a case for His motives being rooted in moral evil.

I had explained to you the real purpose for God singling out the Israelites into family groups to be judged by quoting the passage immediately preceding your verse, as context was needed. Being unable to know a peoples' motivations in advance, you would be able to make your case that Achan's family was included as some type of scare tactic, if the individual being described were a person; but, as God could knows each individual's motives in advance, I explained the right situation; I'm giving the proper interpretation, as I can't just allow you to spread misinformation where you desire to peddle the misinformation. This is something that is implied by the text, where you're taking the text to imply to me that God is engaged in the act of moral evil; as such, no where in the text does it say that God is capable of moral evil with implying something into the text; but, now, it's necessary for me to offset your use of misinformation to imply the misleading point that God can be shown to have been engaged in moral evil. Just don't try to mislead me, you won't succeed; I see where your misinformation that you wish to peddle breaks down under the proper Biblical interpretation.

“GOD did not show Long Suffering, as soon as they started complaining about not having food or water in Numbers 11 or Numbers 21, GOD got mad and he punished them. The text does not say that they was complaining every single day for 40 years.”

While the text seems to say that God isn't longsuffering, because He reacted as He did in Numbers 11 and Numbers 21, it is necessary to gain the full context for why God would react against Israel complaining. Once you do that, you can then avoid being mislead by misinformation.

As explained in the paragraph that you're quoting, the context starts more than 40 years earlier relative to the Mandate that God had previously laid down in Exodus. Thus, more than 40 years is longsuffering. Israel may or may not have complained every single day for 40 years, but, they complained sufficiently over more than a 40 year period, where they had advanced knowledge of how God felt about this particular issue of complaining. Here, you're misusing the text and giving the false impression that God just snapped at Israel for no reason for something as minor as complaining, where this is just misinformation being spread by largely uninformed atheists to then mislead people who are even less informed but being compelled or motivated to receive their misinformation to find a protest against Christianity.

“Correct, the Egyptians did kill a generation of Israelites while Moses was a Baby, so instead of GOD trying to protect the Israelite children from a Pharoah who was bloodlusted, GOD would rather let those babies get killed off so he could later exact revenge against Egypt by killing off their First Born ?”

The matter at hand was that you were accusing God of acting against the Egyptians as if they were actually innocent. And, to answer your question, no, being blood lusted is very unlikely to have been God's motive for His action. Surely, you can do a better job of coming up with a reason for God's actions, as I've been doing, in keeping in faithful to what the Bible teaches about God's character, as shown in Scriptures like James 1:13. You can't be this gullible to the misinformation from the atheistic community, claiming to have been as far up the church chain as pastor; thus for lack of a better explanation, you're wobbling in and peddling misinformation for some bizarre reason, knowing that this leads you into the gates of hell. You want to pull innocent souls down in your hole with you, when you can just simply stop saving face, concede the point, and repent, before it becomes too late for you.

But, one more likely motivation is establishing justice and God is our Avenger, as Christians, and, then, at that time, the Avenger for His people, the Jews; but, in both justice and the delay, this tells us Christians that more facts are under consideration by God, meaning, that humans, on earth, are not privy to the full context; but, in Heaven, if this comes up, I'll be happy to hear God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit provide full context, but, if you'll listen and repent, as I ask of you, maybe God will summon me, when you're soul arrives in Heaven, remind me of this exchange, and explain the full context; as I said before, my more pressing issue for when I get to Heaven is the pre-Flood world; I also want to see what life was like for Jesus from birth until He was 30 years old, leading into His disposition of the Gospel; I also want to see before creation and my prior interaction with God and to really thank Him for rescuing me from my fate, as I'm going to be so happy to be with God in Heaven and not back in that situation, as one of my main concerns; or, maybe God will let me know that it is something that I'm mistaken about.

But, my point is, repent so that you can raise these issues with God, in Heaven, instead of getting some of these answers from Satan, who would then have no reason to deceive you, as your fate would be sealed with him in Hell.

“Well, we do know that GOD does not mind Bloodshed and killing people when they do not do what he says or killing people to exact revenge. If there is no way to judge GOD actions then how do you judge that GOD is good ?”

This was already explained to you as both your willingness to wobble in misinformation that you should know better about, if you ever reached the level of pastor in a church, and, not having the full context behind God's motivation for an action; but, God does tell Christians that vengeance is His. Also, while things may look bad for you, that doesn't mean that they were rooted in some moral evil; the full context isn't there and may not be possible to fully understand as an earth dwelling human; for the explanation, we true Christians will need the enhancements in intellect that we true Christians will be receiving in Heaven, plus, the time, of course; once I'm in Heaven, I can then better understand the how and why for things; will you repent and join me, being convinced by my explanations, as God's advocate? One of the keys, though, is to receive the restrictions set in place by James 1:13 and refrain from accusing God of ever being motivated by moral evil; God is motivated by justice and goodness.

“So if someone is doing Bad Things that is not like someone doing Evil ? GOD does act as a person though, he obviously has feelings and can be get angry and act as a dictator does at times from the Bible. The Bible says numerous times that GOD's anger was kindled by something and it's usually something he does not like, this is no different than another person. We also get angry about things we do not like.”

Well, I don't agree with you that God did anything bad, I only agreed that the things looked bad; and, I thank God for bailing me out, as He lead me to Exodus, again, where He says that He's about to do a terrible thing to Moses in the way of perception. Something looking bad doesn't necessarily lead me to concluded that God was motivated by moral evil; I see it mostly as God exacting justice for a wrong as but a portion of the entire context which could have motivated God; but, moral evil is never a factor behind God's actions. Sure, God can act as a Person because of His feelings, being angered, disappointed, and hurt, but, the other factor that far surpassed that of an ordinary human is the intellect components, as well as a motivation that can never be affected by moral evil; only pure justice can be a motive for God, in that sense. But, to help us with our understanding, God provided us the redemptive qualities of Jesus, knowing how people could be mislead in their interpretation of His actions; with Jesus, we can then have the opportunity to ask God our most pressing concerns and questions, where I understand my restrictions by James 1:13; it's more comfortable for me, as I have the Holy Spirit; I can ask Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit for strength to overcome my sin weaknesses; and God delivered for me, as the Scripture teaches; I always confess with 1 John 1:9 going forward.

“Job 2:10 has Job saying shall we not receive both Good and Evil things. I think other versions use Trouble. The point being is that Job recognized that both Good and Evil came from GOD.”

No, this verse doesn't support your attempt to peddle misinformation; it's to show you the similarities with Isaiah 45:7, where, this time, Job's use of the word evil was not sin, because he was referring to the lack of an alternative word to use; and, yes, the other Bible versions explain that God is the source of peace and can be the source of adversity; but, if God is that source, than it is for shaping the character of those He considers apart of His select/chosen flock.

“He would not be sinning to say GOD does Evil, he would however be sinning if he Cursed GOD because of it though.”

Job would have been sinning with his lips, if he were accusing God of moral evil; the Bible says accusing God of moral evil is a sin, which was the purpose of the verse saying that Job wasn't sinning with his lips; it came down to his motivation, which was explaining that God could be the source of adversity, and this is clearly why the other Bible verses uses terms other than evil. That's sort of the point with James 1:13 to let you know what boundaries to avoid.

“Many other people use the KJV Bible, so I do not see how you figure I am peddling misinformation. Heck, the passage of Job 2:10 you quoted was from the King James.”

Obviously you were and you exposed yourself by introducing the other Bible versions, after being unable to persuade me to agree with your point; the use of the King James version of the Bible by the mainstream Christian church certainly has nothing to do with your efforts to try making an argument that God is the source of moral evil, despite what the Bible teaches about His character (e.g. also, you haven't found Bible contradictions, as your other objection). And, a key indicator, obviously, is that the other Bible versions refraining from associating God with being the source of moral evil. That verse was Job explaining his understanding that God could some times be the source of adversity for its character shaping purposes and for testing purposes.

“Wait a Minute, you just judged GOD to be that though. You would need a standard to know that GOD is a good and just Judge.”

No, I didn't judge God as being the source of moral evil and it was clear from the passage that you quoted; Job 2:10 is actually clarifying that the vocabulary was limited at that time, so the term evil could be used for other purposes that newer words such as adversity now clarifies; as time passed, vocabulary became more expansive and now adversity is a word that is available as a substitute for just the word, evil, which was the only option back then, during Job's time. A standard is lacking, again, because we don't have the full context surrounding what might have motivated one of God's decisions; and, this context will be revealed in Heaven where we, as true Christians, as accepted by/of God, can then receive enhancements in order to better understand an explanation.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7649

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

John 6:28-51:

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for deactivated-60b8b9a9dd778
deactivated-60b8b9a9dd778

3108

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

John 6:28-51:

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

All this +100

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250015

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28677  Edited By King_Saturn

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

You waited almost 2 weeks to respond ? Why ? Why wait so long only to return to a discussion that was already dead ? Okay, I will be brief with you this time.

As explained in the paragraph that you're quoting, 1 Chronicles 21:1 is chronicling 2 Samuel 24:1. 1 Chronicles 21:1 introduces Satan in reference to 2 Samuel 24:1, where there was no mention of Satan in 2 Samuel 24 in the version of the Bible that we have today. From this, we can make a logical extension that material is missing from the part of 2 Sameul 24 that is called 2 Samuel 24:1 today.

You do realize that if The Bible is the Word of GOD, if 1 Chronicles 21 is revealing that Satan was the one who caused David to number Israel that the Information in 2 Samuel 24 is no longer missing ? I mean how is it you missed this ?

And, also, in church this past Sunday, my pastor mentioned something that could explain what I was getting at: back in the 1700s, the Bible was known to have been edited to remove some material, as a version of the Bible was given to Africans during the slave trade which had edited material from the Bible; so, we now have another basis to imagine that, this editing material from the Bible, had occurred before the 1700s and since the 1700s, where mistakes were apparently made during the editing process, as God caused this mistake to insure that we can still know His Word in some way. Thank God for that bit of new material that can now allow me to move from conjecture by logical extensions.

This helps your case None.

We know here that it isn't the case because of the differences in context and how your version goes against what the Bible teaches about God's true character. The census just followed in time after existing sin by the Israelites, based on the earlier verses in 2 Samuel 24 that I quoted. In this context, it couldn't logical be read to see it was occurring at the same time; the census came later in time. With this, we get help from 1 Chronicles 21:1 again.

There are no other earlier verses in 2 Samuel 24. The earlier verses in 2 Samuel do not give evidence to this being why GOD was angry at the beginning of 2 Samuel 24, however we see clearly in 1 Chronicles 21, that GOD was displeased with David numbering Israel and we see a compound in 2 Samuel 24 of GOD being Angry with Israel and Satan moving David to number Israel. It's clear that what kindled GOD's anger was David numbering Israel as it is spelled out clearly in 1 Chronicles 21.

2 Samuel 24:1 had already made clear that Israel was in sin; plus, God can multitask; as such, God punished Israel for their existing sin, through Joab, warned David not to go through with the census, David proceeded anyway, so God punished Israel for their sin, David for his indiscretion, and each individual Israelite for each of their sins.

No, 2 Samuel 24:1 makes it clear that GOD was angry with Israel but because of what ? It's because of what David was doing. This is made clear from 1 Chronicles 21. GOD did not punish each individual Israelite for their own sin. You are making that up and no scripture states that in 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21.

As you should be able to gather from what you quoted, you altered the sequence of events from the plain text of the Scripture rather than just concede the points.

No I did not. There is no sequence of events. It's GOD was angry and Satan was doing stuff. That's not a sequence of events. That a combination of things happening together.

I demonstrated that I understood how you were altering the plain text in order to peddle misinformation; I explained my justification for concluding that information was missing, as the chronicler describing Satan's involvement, where the chronicler was making reference to 2 Samuel 24:1.

How can Information be Missing if it is given in the Bible ? That makes no sense.

Considering that you can't treat God as if He is another person, this isn't mere conjecture; God has the ability to multitask based on more than just one objective and motivation. You're departing from what the Bible teaches about the character of God and trying to make a case for His motives being rooted in moral evil.

I had explained to you the real purpose for God singling out the Israelites into family groups to be judged by quoting the passage immediately preceding your verse, as context was needed. Being unable to know a peoples' motivations in advance, you would be able to make your case that Achan's family was included as some type of scare tactic, if the individual being described were a person; but, as God could knows each individual's motives in advance, I explained the right situation; I'm giving the proper interpretation, as I can't just allow you to spread misinformation where you desire to peddle the misinformation. This is something that is implied by the text, where you're taking the text to imply to me that God is engaged in the act of moral evil; as such, no where in the text does it say that God is capable of moral evil with implying something into the text; but, now, it's necessary for me to offset your use of misinformation to imply the misleading point that God can be shown to have been engaged in moral evil. Just don't try to mislead me, you won't succeed; I see where your misinformation that you wish to peddle breaks down under the proper Biblical interpretation.

So you just make up stuff to assume that Achan's sons and daughters was doing something wrong even though the passage only says Achan had sinned ? This is the problem with your arguments. You assume too much to make GOD not look as bad as he does in these accounts.

While the text seems to say that God isn't longsuffering, because He reacted as He did in Numbers 11 and Numbers 21, it is necessary to gain the full context for why God would react against Israel complaining. Once you do that, you can then avoid being mislead by misinformation.

As explained in the paragraph that you're quoting, the context starts more than 40 years earlier relative to the Mandate that God had previously laid down in Exodus. Thus, more than 40 years is longsuffering. Israel may or may not have complained every single day for 40 years, but, they complained sufficiently over more than a 40 year period, where they had advanced knowledge of how God felt about this particular issue of complaining. Here, you're misusing the text and giving the false impression that God just snapped at Israel for no reason for something as minor as complaining, where this is just misinformation being spread by largely uninformed atheists to then mislead people who are even less informed but being compelled or motivated to receive their misinformation to find a protest against Christianity.

GOD would snap though. The Israelites was not constantly complaining during the trip through the Wilderness. At times they would complain and GOD would show Patience and at other times GOD would get pissed and kill Israelites.

The matter at hand was that you were accusing God of acting against the Egyptians as if they were actually innocent. And, to answer your question, no, being blood lusted is very unlikely to have been God's motive for His action. Surely, you can do a better job of coming up with a reason for God's actions, as I've been doing, in keeping in faithful to what the Bible teaches about God's character, as shown in Scriptures like James 1:13. You can't be this gullible to the misinformation from the atheistic community, claiming to have been as far up the church chain as pastor; thus for lack of a better explanation, you're wobbling in and peddling misinformation for some bizarre reason, knowing that this leads you into the gates of hell. You want to pull innocent souls down in your hole with you, when you can just simply stop saving face, concede the point, and repent, before it becomes too late for you.

Well technically, the First Born of Egypt at the time of GOD's punishment was Innocent as it was there Fathers who had done Evil during the time of Moses being a Child. GOD did do Bad Things here as he essentially killed Children for what their Fathers did wrong. That is not Justice at all.

But, one more likely motivation is establishing justice and God is our Avenger, as Christians, and, then, at that time, the Avenger for His people, the Jews; but, in both justice and the delay, this tells us Christians that more facts are under consideration by God, meaning, that humans, on earth, are not privy to the full context; but, in Heaven, if this comes up, I'll be happy to hear God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit provide full context, but, if you'll listen and repent, as I ask of you, maybe God will summon me, when you're soul arrives in Heaven, remind me of this exchange, and explain the full context; as I said before, my more pressing issue for when I get to Heaven is the pre-Flood world; I also want to see what life was like for Jesus from birth until He was 30 years old, leading into His disposition of the Gospel; I also want to see before creation and my prior interaction with God and to really thank Him for rescuing me from my fate, as I'm going to be so happy to be with God in Heaven and not back in that situation, as one of my main concerns; or, maybe God will let me know that it is something that I'm mistaken about.

Again, how is it Justice for GOD to kill Children because their Fathers did wrong ? How is GOD doing good things ?

But, my point is, repent so that you can raise these issues with God, in Heaven, instead of getting some of these answers from Satan, who would then have no reason to deceive you, as your fate would be sealed with him in Hell.

Why can not GOD clear these issues up now ? Why should I repent to a Deity whose Character is so Inconsistent ?

This was already explained to you as both your willingness to wobble in misinformation that you should know better about, if you ever reached the level of pastor in a church, and, not having the full context behind God's motivation for an action; but, God does tell Christians that vengeance is His. Also, while things may look bad for you, that doesn't mean that they were rooted in some moral evil; the full context isn't there and may not be possible to fully understand as an earth dwelling human; for the explanation, we true Christians will need the enhancements in intellect that we true Christians will be receiving in Heaven, plus, the time, of course; once I'm in Heaven, I can then better understand the how and why for things; will you repent and join me, being convinced by my explanations, as God's advocate? One of the keys, though, is to receive the restrictions set in place by James 1:13 and refrain from accusing God of ever being motivated by moral evil; God is motivated by justice and goodness.

If GOD is Motivated by Justice then why does he often kill people whom are Innocent ? Why is GOD killing off Achan's sons and daughters ? Why is GOD killing off Egypt's First Born if it's their Fathers whom did evil against Israelite Children ? GOD does do Evil at times.

Well, I don't agree with you that God did anything bad, I only agreed that the things looked bad; and, I thank God for bailing me out, as He lead me to Exodus, again, where He says that He's about to do a terrible thing to Moses in the way of perception. Something looking bad doesn't necessarily lead me to concluded that God was motivated by moral evil; I see it mostly as God exacting justice for a wrong as but a portion of the entire context which could have motivated God; but, moral evil is never a factor behind God's actions. Sure, God can act as a Person because of His feelings, being angered, disappointed, and hurt, but, the other factor that far surpassed that of an ordinary human is the intellect components, as well as a motivation that can never be affected by moral evil; only pure justice can be a motive for God, in that sense. But, to help us with our understanding, God provided us the redemptive qualities of Jesus, knowing how people could be mislead in their interpretation of His actions; with Jesus, we can then have the opportunity to ask God our most pressing concerns and questions, where I understand my restrictions by James 1:13; it's more comfortable for me, as I have the Holy Spirit; I can ask Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit for strength to overcome my sin weaknesses; and God delivered for me, as the Scripture teaches; I always confess with 1 John 1:9 going forward.

What's the different between GOD doing Moral Evil or GOD doing Bad Things or Evil Things ? I mean I showed you multiple accounts where GOD does do Bad Things. GOD killing off Children for the Sins of their Fathers ? How is that Justice or Good ?

No, this verse doesn't support your attempt to peddle misinformation; it's to show you the similarities with Isaiah 45:7, where, this time, Job's use of the word evil was not sin, because he was referring to the lack of an alternative word to use; and, yes, the other Bible versions explain that God is the source of peace and can be the source of adversity; but, if God is that source, than it is for shaping the character of those He considers apart of His select/chosen flock.

So Job was not saying that GOD does Good and Bad Things ? Seems like he was to me.

Job would have been sinning with his lips, if he were accusing God of moral evil; the Bible says accusing God of moral evil is a sin, which was the purpose of the verse saying that Job wasn't sinning with his lips; it came down to his motivation, which was explaining that God could be the source of adversity, and this is clearly why the other Bible verses uses terms other than evil. That's sort of the point with James 1:13 to let you know what boundaries to avoid.

Again, what is the difference in saying GOD does Moral Evil or GOD does Bad Things or Evil Things ? If GOD is killing people who are innocent or having people hurt whom are innocent. How is that not GOD doing bad things ?

Obviously you were and you exposed yourself by introducing the other Bible versions, after being unable to persuade me to agree with your point; the use of the King James version of the Bible by the mainstream Christian church certainly has nothing to do with your efforts to try making an argument that God is the source of moral evil, despite what the Bible teaches about His character (e.g. also, you haven't found Bible contradictions, as your other objection). And, a key indicator, obviously, is that the other Bible versions refraining from associating God with being the source of moral evil. That verse was Job explaining his understanding that God could some times be the source of adversity for its character shaping purposes and for testing purposes.

I only used the KJV and NIV. It was you whom introduced other Bible Versions. It means nothing though as if GOD can kill Children for the Evil there Fathers do, then GOD can do Evil and Bad Things. Also, I could care less what the Mainstream Christian Church is saying. The Mainstream Christian Church does even really read The Bible. Could not tell you about Achan in Joshua 7 or about David and The Census in 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21. Most Christian Churches focus on all the soft stuff in the Bible and the New Testament.

No, I didn't judge God as being the source of moral evil and it was clear from the passage that you quoted; Job 2:10 is actually clarifying that the vocabulary was limited at that time, so the term evil could be used for other purposes that newer words such as adversity now clarifies; as time passed, vocabulary became more expansive and now adversity is a word that is available as a substitute for just the word, evil, which was the only option back then, during Job's time. A standard is lacking, again, because we don't have the full context surrounding what might have motivated one of God's decisions; and, this context will be revealed in Heaven where we, as true Christians, as accepted by/of God, can then receive enhancements in order to better understand an explanation.

You missed the point again. I was saying You judged GOD to be Just and Good. You judged GOD to be that way but what standard are you using to say GOD is Just or Good ? You are using accounts from the Bible. Well, I am using accounts from the Bible to show GOD also does Bad and Evil Things. Also, most Bible variations from the NIV, ESV, KJV and even the KJ21 have in Job 2:10 the word is used as Evil, not Adversity. None of them translate it as Adversity. However one variation I think the NIV translates that word as Trouble.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

Loading Video...

@flashfyr said:

@dshipp17:

"Correct" and "false" are not the right vocabulary, whether you're talking about events, equations, or variables. Do you know how we came to the inductive conclusion of abiogenesis? There hasn't been sufficient, low p-value empirical evidence to suggest a god did anything, but we have plenty of data to suggest natural processes happen. Ergo, until we find evidence to reject the null hypothesis for creationism, we research the possibility of abiogenesis. No one says the Great Flood or creationism is impossible or wrong because that's not the right vocabulary.

> In this case, it means that I have to write my thesis or present the findings. It's a physics calculation or formula. If it's for my thesis or scientific finding, I'm not just going to present it here, until after I've formalized my results.

And that's why I'm dismissing it.

> This is a side issue and not the issue at hand (e.g. the complications with Flood versus the complications with abiogenesis). I'm not doing science wrong, because I'm not slanted towards the way you would like to see things. I just disagree.

A slant isn't why you're doing science wrong (in this particular point), you're doing it wrong by flexing an argument from ignorance fallacy.

> They've done many different experiments that demonstrate the abiogenesis is just not something that is likely. This is one of those things that are described exhaustively among Christian scientists. Essentially, this is a roundabout way of saying that we should start by assuming that there is no God in favor of abiogenesis, despite the evidence against the idea, which is pretty sound. By the same token, evidence for God has panned out, as it expands beyond science. If I have experimental proof, then, there is no real need to continue with something like the null hypothesis; there is just simply lots of different experiments that has shown one way or the other that abiogenesis is not likely, including the showing that it is literally mathematically impossible.

Cite. Your. Information.

> When the Flood is discussed, they're always describing something like geology and fossilization and making logical inferences; they aren't just making truth claims; I know this, because I look at what they're describing, not presuming what they said. This is a case of whether the context is always appropriate to apply the scientific method; here, you're just making sweeping generalizations. I just simply made an observation or described one, based on the context and circumstances. If the context called for the use of the scientific method, then, I would have phrased it differently, except this was the context for describing the scientific method in action.

I'm only 60% sure I know what you're saying because your grammar and syntax need brushing up. It doesn't help that you're using lots of vague words like "this, what (as an object), a case," instead of just saying the noun. But going off what I think you're trying to say, my response is that the null hypothesis is a technique used in every science for every kind of research. Everywhere. It doesn't matter whether it's social science or physical science, qualitative, quantitative, inductive, deductive, ethnography or experiment; I'm making a sweeping generalization of the scientific method because null hypothesis is the scientific method.

> This is largely because of the biases and presumptions taken at the start, most likely. Simply because a natural process occurred is largely irrelevant to whether God did something. Natural processes is just terminology that you just threw into the discussion out of the ether and without proper context to the discussion at hand.

What biases and presumptions are taken at the start? You're being vague again. But p-value is something that can be taken from any scientist, so what low p-value evidence has creationism put forth? I'm not saying that natural processes have relevancy to God doing something; I'm talking about the amount of evidence we have for Great Flood vs abiogenesis. They're two standalone topics but, for comparison's sake because you decided abiogenesis is less probable, I'm saying that abiogenesis (a natural process) has more empirical support (natural processes) than a Great Flood and all the events you're saying happened (divine intervention). How do you claim that a Great Flood is more likely when you don't give any data of divine interventions? And if you're going to say I'm getting the context wrong, say what you think the context is instead.

> Irreducable complexity is one reason to accept creationism and reject abiogenesis. Creationism is proving much more likely then abiogenesis; it's just their decision to continue to research abiogenesis but not research creationism.

Irreducible complexity is defined as a part being unable to do the same function if you reduce it, which is a patently absurd argument because, while it's true, it doesn't prove your god made anything or even that evolution is wrong. We have removed pieces of DNA that code for flagella and found that the part transforms into something that still has a useful function, just not the same function. So if a flagella's current state is mobility, we'd reduce it to less mobility, then a tail to catch food, then a basic feeler. That was something predicted in evolution via path dependency and cumulative retention. You keep saying creationism is proven much more likely but this is the only thing you've been specific about and it's far from a strong argument for proving or disproving something.

> This is just plan wrong; there is simply no evidence for abiogenesis, at all; figuratively and literally; no evidence for the Great Flood is just a claim recycled over and over again in the atheistic community. They describe evidence for the Flood in the very video that you're supposedly discussing with me; you just pick this thing about the heat heat energy calculation against the Flood and ran with that, where the video is discussing the geological evidence for the Flood. You're simply living or describing in a state of denial, if, after watching that video, you say there's not evidence for the Flood; there's plenty; sometimes, though, it's a matter of interpretation more than anything else.

Good job ignoring the part where I explained, start to finish, how we used the inductive method to reach abiogenesis as a conclusion. It's funny because you didn't quote my message where I listed the data collection used to induce abiogenesis (a natural process). As for the second part of your response, I asked you wholly what your Great Flood model has predicted, but instead you look at something already discovered and apply an ad hoc explanation to call it evidence which is something I specifically said is a problem with creation science (coming up with no discoveries compelling only to creationism, waiting for other people to discover everything, then interpreting it differently). How convenient you never quoted my request for a prediction anywhere. Literally, creation science has been nothing but a bunch of negativists hellbent on trying to disprove everything but producing nothing new and tangible. If all you can do is interpret other people's findings and call that evidence, creation science is akin to someone that takes the position of a critic without ever having created art. Wait until someone else does the work, then jump on it with no merit of your own. Nor have you given any low p-value evidence that I asked for early on.

> I didn't say this, at all; I said that they've reconstructed the Ark, based on the dimensions provided in the Bible and shown it to be viable; in response, you raised the issue of rough currents.

First of all, is your critical thinking actually this poor? Let's walk through what you said.

@flashfyr said:

Further, how did his family build a wooden ship that didn't twist and fall apart in such violent wind and water? Not only did they live before modern engineering, but they also used a subpar material that doesn't work for projects that big. Assuming the ark didn't get destroyed as wood should, how come the animals and humans weren't thrown around the interior by hundred-meter-tsunamis for over a month?

@dshipp17 said:

@flashfyr:

...

“Further, how did his family build a wooden ship that didn't twist and fall apart in such violent wind and water? Not only did they live before modern engineering, but they also used a subpar material that doesn't work for projects that big. Assuming the ark didn't get destroyed as wood should, how come the animals and humans weren't thrown around the interior by hundred-meter-tsunamis for over a month?”

The dimensions for the ship are provided in the Bible. This design has been reconstructed and it proved to be quite viable for the task at hand.

No Caption Provided

I set conditions (tsunamis) and you said there's a reconstruction that's shown to be viable for surviving said conditions. First you claim you didn't say "this" (vague as usual). Then you cancel that statement by saying they HAVE reconstructed an ark that's viable, contradicting yourself. And to really bring out the stupidity of it all, you claim I brought up the issue of rough currents in response, but I never once used that word ever. If you're taking it from "violent wind and water," or when I brought up tsunamis, I raised those issues in my first message and you even quoted it. Either you're making up an argument for me, or you're pretending that I raised an issue after rather than before.

Aight, I'm done. I can't argue with people who rewrite history, write it back, and possibly create some new history.

You leave out parts of my messages you haven't addressed, you use incorrect terminology like "sound, correct, and jargon," you're vague as hell, replacing important nouns like topics and contexts with pronouns, saying there's "plenty of evidence" in everything you claim yet you haven't said what they are nor can you be bothered to link a page to it (I can live without one or the other, not both), and you blatantly can't keep track of your points or mine. Since I'm not a hypocrite and I'm not gonna be vague, let me point out exactly what I'm talking about:

> They've done many different experiments that demonstrate the abiogenesis is just not something that is likely... By the same token, evidence for God has panned out, as it expands beyond science. If I have experimental proof, then, there is no real need to continue with something like the null hypothesis; there is just simply lots of different experiments that has shown one way or the other that abiogenesis is not likely, including the showing that it is literally mathematically impossible. (No description of these experiments or any link to them).

> the evidence against the idea, which is pretty sound. (Soundness is a philosophical term that operates under truth/false and science does not deal in truth claims)

> When the Flood is discussed, they're always describing something like geology and fossilization and making logical inferences; they aren't just making truth claims; I know this, because I look at what they're describing, not presuming what they said. This is a case of whether the context is always appropriate to apply the scientific method; here, you're just making sweeping generalizations. If the context called for the use of the scientific method, then, I would have phrased it differently, except this was the context for describing the scientific method in action. (Who are 'they?' What is 'it?' What is 'this?' What is the context? I'm sure the meaning is simple but your language isn't)

> This is largely because of the biases and presumptions taken at the start, most likely. (Didn't name them)

> Natural processes is just terminology that you just threw into the discussion out of the ether and without proper context to the discussion at hand. ("The context" you still refuse to spit out so that it's a vague force that makes me wrong by de facto, aka you're vague)

> it's just their decision to continue to research abiogenesis but not research creationism. (Left out a part of my message and didn't address at all why we research abiogenesis as a result of induction, instead misrepresenting this decision as arbitrary decision)

> you are biased towards something like abiogenesis being true (true is not correct terminology since science doesn't do truth claims)

And it's 11:51 now so I'm done scanning for other spots past the 1/4 my list constitutes. You've eaten up enough of my time so I'm not gonna bother reading your messages. I'll just quote this and attach it to whatever video rhetoric you try proselytizing everyone with so they know why it's a waste of time to argue with you. Bye.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7649

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

“A slant isn't why you're doing science wrong (in this particular point), you're doing it wrong by flexing an argument from ignorance fallacy.”

The point is that abiogenesis has not been proven to be a viable option for how life arose. The claim that there is no God, or that God was never involved in how life arose, is also an ignorant fallacy. However, there is plenty of indirect evidence, at least, of God's existence, but no direct or indirect evidence for abiogenesis, as the source for how life arose. "Ignorance fallacy" is just a confusing term for people to use to make it seem as if you actually contradicted something that I said in relation to abiogenesis. That there is contrary evidence for God is a notion that Christian scientists are currently addressing in abundance. The idea or notion of a ignorant fallacy is just recycled information designed to take advantage of peoples' ignorance by people misusing their credentials to then say things that confuse people who see viewing information from the scholarly Christian community as a stigma. But, pointing out that there is plenty of indirect evidence for God and the Flood is only being honest from people who are also scientists, and take the information from the scholarly Christian community seriously, based on an honest evaluation of the credibility of the information being presented. I was trying to get you back on the topics at hand, when I said you were slanted.

“Cite. Your. Information.”

The information is just so very abundant and easily found. Actually, it would be you who would need to cite any information to the contrary: that abiogenesis is not possible, according to numerous tests and studies. Chemical molecules are just simply not going to come together to make a living organism, naturally and unaided, without the involvement of an intelligent agent or designer. You're sort of asking me to do something like: cite a source that tells you how to do additions and subtractions.

“I'm only 60% sure I know what you're saying because your grammar and syntax need brushing up. It doesn't help that you're using lots of vague words like "this, what (as an object), a case," instead of just saying the noun.”

What is written in that paragraph is pretty clear. You'll need to explain how you're confused about what was written a bit more specifically. The words are not so vague as to leave someone unable to understand what the paragraph said to you. Again, this is just your efforts at side tracking the topic at hand by trying to swing the topic into something that is just not specific to the context, except you wont be honest about what you're doing. I understand that you just want to start throwing out all of those words that you're currently learning in your classes.

“But going off what I think you're trying to say, my response is that the null hypothesis is a technique used in every science for every kind of research.”

In this case, research isn't really necessary to describe a set of clear and plan observations that academics who are also geographic experts in the process of describing geographic features that have been written in publications and articles. Again, this isn't the proper context for the topics that you're trying to squeeze into the discussion. We don't need a set of statistics to discuss a description of geographic features being described by expert geologists in this specific context; or, why do you need statistical data for the discussion at hand? Are you trying to say, indirectly, or imply that many different geologists have been describing the cited features differently? The presentation implies that there are essentially just two interpretations of these geographic features, while you would need evidence that there are so many different interpretations of these geographic features that you can introduce statistics to these observations. There is simply no way for anyone to have logically gleaned something like this from what I wrote in the paragraph that you've quoted. Thus, you're trying to hijack or side track the discussion to something else.

“What biases and presumptions are taken at the start? You're being vague again. But p-value is something that can be taken from any scientist, so what low p-value evidence has creationism put forth?”

Biases and presumptions that God wasn't involved, obviously, going logically from your position that God doesn't exists. I'm not being vague, I'm just keeping you on topic. At what point in my discussion did I start quoting statistics for you or anything that would require a statistical analysis? This is the context for p-value and the null hypothesis. It is you who would have to make a case, via statistical analysis, that God wasn't the cause of the Global Flood, as the discussion was regarding the Global Flood, taking into account the geographic features being discussed by the geologist in my clip. The Global Flood and geological features and environmental effects and kinds migrating throughout the globe from the Ark, following the Flood, were some of the topics at hand; and, the Genesis account and the viability of the Ask to withstand rough currents. And, suddenly, you bring the p-value and null hypothesis up, which are statistical concepts for statistical analyses. This is just your introducing recycled gibberish from the atheistic community and trying to send the discussion off on a tangent from the topics at hand, leaving an implication that there was tacit agreement between us that what you were saying was somehow true. You have to use your commonsense to allow you to stay on topic.

“ I'm not saying that natural processes have relevancy to God doing something; I'm talking about the amount of evidence we have for Great Flood vs abiogenesis. They're two standalone topics but, for comparison's sake because you decided abiogenesis is less probable, I'm saying that abiogenesis (a natural process) has more empirical support (natural processes) than a Great Flood and all the events you're saying happened (divine intervention).”

This is just plainly wrong; and, I'd already pointed out that these were the standalone topics in the very first and second paragraph that you quoted, to which you pretended not to know what was being discussed and just brought in the term, ignorant fallacy. Here, you're saying one thing, while trying to say the polar opposite in another context. This proves that you did, indeed, understand what the my discussion was about despite your claim to the contrary, where you introduced a topic that just simply does not apply, at all, to this discussion. First, there is quite literally nothing that supports abogenesis. What we really have are a large series of failed experiments which were then intended to produce a hypothesis for abiogenesis having occurred, provided the experiments had succeeded, except these experiments have failed repeatedly. Thus, there is simply no empirical support for the idea that chemical molecules came together to produce a lifeforms. On the other hand, we have an expert geologists, being honest, for once, by describing geographic features to then conclude that the Flood most likely took place, along with divine intervention, as described in the Bible, based on what he sees. The Bible is ok to be included, as all attempts to validate what is recorded in the Bible have panned out, while, on the other end, pretty much every experiment trying to substantiate the idea of abiogenesis have failed to yield such results; and, I'm just focused on these two ideas in this discussion. I didn't say that I was presenting every single piece of evidence that the scholarly Christian community is using as evidence for the Flood.

“How do you claim that a Great Flood is more likely when you don't give any data of divine interventions?”

I did indeed present data. In this case, the data are a set of observations concerning geographic features being described by an expert geologist in a YouTube clip that you then side tracked with a discussion on the heat dissipation speculated or briefly postulated to have occurred, during a global flood, that was discussed near the beginning of the clip as a problem with the computer modeling that was used. Basically, it looks like you're so biased against the prospect that the information being discussed could be indeed have provided evidence for the Global Flood that you're not paying attention to the overall discussion or examples provided within the clip, which should be a reactive ability for anyone viewing the clip. Basically, quite simply, you're just side tracking or defecting from the the truth, as you want to believe a hypothesis or supposition that is recycled by the atheistic community.

“Irreducible complexity is defined as a part being unable to do the same function if you reduce it, which is a patently absurd argument because, while it's true, it doesn't prove your god made anything or even that evolution is wrong.”

That God, as an Intelligent Designer, could have created a system that is irreducible complex is not wildly unreasonable by any means or stretch of the imagination, at all, in the context of our actually reality, especially when the competing concept has to be abiogenesis, which has repeatedly failed in experimental attempts to verify its viability, in comparison to all attempts to investigate the written material from the Bible. Irreducible complexity, being true, rules out it being absurd, at the same time. Clearly, right before our very eyes, we can see your bias live and in action. In order to claim it's absurd, it would mean that you had an alternative explanation that was as clear as something like the internal combustion process which you clearly don't have at your disposal to present. God expands into other fields, besides science.

“We have removed pieces of DNA that code for flagella and found that the part transforms into something that still has a useful function, just not the same function. So if a flagella's current state is mobility, we'd reduce it to less mobility, then a tail to catch food, then a basic feeler.”

This hardly makes up for the numerous other experiments that have failed to validate abiogenesis, especially to the extent that you can claim that a logical extension from the scholarly Christian community is absurd. The prime factor here is the flagella, which is already a fully functional biological system; this “still useful function” is not from just plain old chemical compounds, molecules, and elements reacting with one another to produce a biological system, without an intelligent agent involved, which is what you'd be required to show me.

“You keep saying creationism is proven much more likely but this is the only thing you've been specific about and it's far from a strong argument for proving or disproving something.”

No, what I've been doing was keeping you from diverting the topic at hand into discussions that are irrelevant to whether or not God caused the Global Flood for want of a God, which appears to be what you're trying to use, in order to claim that no global Flood actually could have occurred.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

“A slant isn't why you're doing science wrong (in this particular point), you're doing it wrong by flexing an argument from ignorance fallacy.”

The point is that abiogenesis has not been proven to be a viable option for how life arose. The claim that there is no God, or that God was never involved in how life arose, is also an ignorant fallacy. However, there is plenty of indirect evidence, at least, of God's existence, but no direct or indirect evidence for abiogenesis, as the source for how life arose. "Ignorance fallacy" is just a confusing term for people to use to make it seem as if you actually contradicted something that I said in relation to abiogenesis. That there is contrary evidence for God is a notion that Christian scientists are currently addressing in abundance. The idea or notion of a ignorant fallacy is just recycled information designed to take advantage of peoples' ignorance by people misusing their credentials to then say things that confuse people who see viewing information from the scholarly Christian community as a stigma. But, pointing out that there is plenty of indirect evidence for God and the Flood is only being honest from people who are also scientists, and take the information from the scholarly Christian community seriously, based on an honest evaluation of the credibility of the information being presented. I was trying to get you back on the topics at hand, when I said you were slanted.

“Cite. Your. Information.”

The information is just so very abundant and easily found. Actually, it would be you who would need to cite any information to the contrary: that abiogenesis is not possible, according to numerous tests and studies. Chemical molecules are just simply not going to come together to make a living organism, naturally and unaided, without the involvement of an intelligent agent or designer. You're sort of asking me to do something like: cite a source that tells you how to do additions and subtractions.

“I'm only 60% sure I know what you're saying because your grammar and syntax need brushing up. It doesn't help that you're using lots of vague words like "this, what (as an object), a case," instead of just saying the noun.”

What is written in that paragraph is pretty clear. You'll need to explain how you're confused about what was written a bit more specifically. The words are not so vague as to leave someone unable to understand what the paragraph said to you. Again, this is just your efforts at side tracking the topic at hand by trying to swing the topic into something that is just not specific to the context, except you wont be honest about what you're doing. I understand that you just want to start throwing out all of those words that you're currently learning in your classes.

“But going off what I think you're trying to say, my response is that the null hypothesis is a technique used in every science for every kind of research.”

In this case, research isn't really necessary to describe a set of clear and plan observations that academics who are also geographic experts in the process of describing geographic features that have been written in publications and articles. Again, this isn't the proper context for the topics that you're trying to squeeze into the discussion. We don't need a set of statistics to discuss a description of geographic features being described by expert geologists in this specific context; or, why do you need statistical data for the discussion at hand? Are you trying to say, indirectly, or imply that many different geologists have been describing the cited features differently? The presentation implies that there are essentially just two interpretations of these geographic features, while you would need evidence that there are so many different interpretations of these geographic features that you can introduce statistics to these observations. There is simply no way for anyone to have logically gleaned something like this from what I wrote in the paragraph that you've quoted. Thus, you're trying to hijack or side track the discussion to something else.

“What biases and presumptions are taken at the start? You're being vague again. But p-value is something that can be taken from any scientist, so what low p-value evidence has creationism put forth?”

Biases and presumptions that God wasn't involved, obviously, going logically from your position that God doesn't exists. I'm not being vague, I'm just keeping you on topic. At what point in my discussion did I start quoting statistics for you or anything that would require a statistical analysis? This is the context for p-value and the null hypothesis. It is you who would have to make a case, via statistical analysis, that God wasn't the cause of the Global Flood, as the discussion was regarding the Global Flood, taking into account the geographic features being discussed by the geologist in my clip. The Global Flood and geological features and environmental effects and kinds migrating throughout the globe from the Ark, following the Flood, were some of the topics at hand; and, the Genesis account and the viability of the Ask to withstand rough currents. And, suddenly, you bring the p-value and null hypothesis up, which are statistical concepts for statistical analyses. This is just your introducing recycled gibberish from the atheistic community and trying to send the discussion off on a tangent from the topics at hand, leaving an implication that there was tacit agreement between us that what you were saying was somehow true. You have to use your commonsense to allow you to stay on topic.

“ I'm not saying that natural processes have relevancy to God doing something; I'm talking about the amount of evidence we have for Great Flood vs abiogenesis. They're two standalone topics but, for comparison's sake because you decided abiogenesis is less probable, I'm saying that abiogenesis (a natural process) has more empirical support (natural processes) than a Great Flood and all the events you're saying happened (divine intervention).”

This is just plainly wrong; and, I'd already pointed out that these were the standalone topics in the very first and second paragraph that you quoted, to which you pretended not to know what was being discussed and just brought in the term, ignorant fallacy. Here, you're saying one thing, while trying to say the polar opposite in another context. This proves that you did, indeed, understand what the my discussion was about despite your claim to the contrary, where you introduced a topic that just simply does not apply, at all, to this discussion. First, there is quite literally nothing that supports abogenesis. What we really have are a large series of failed experiments which were then intended to produce a hypothesis for abiogenesis having occurred, provided the experiments had succeeded, except these experiments have failed repeatedly. Thus, there is simply no empirical support for the idea that chemical molecules came together to produce a lifeforms. On the other hand, we have an expert geologists, being honest, for once, by describing geographic features to then conclude that the Flood most likely took place, along with divine intervention, as described in the Bible, based on what he sees. The Bible is ok to be included, as all attempts to validate what is recorded in the Bible have panned out, while, on the other end, pretty much every experiment trying to substantiate the idea of abiogenesis have failed to yield such results; and, I'm just focused on these two ideas in this discussion. I didn't say that I was presenting every single piece of evidence that the scholarly Christian community is using as evidence for the Flood.

“How do you claim that a Great Flood is more likely when you don't give any data of divine interventions?”

I did indeed present data. In this case, the data are a set of observations concerning geographic features being described by an expert geologist in a YouTube clip that you then side tracked with a discussion on the heat dissipation speculated or briefly postulated to have occurred, during a global flood, that was discussed near the beginning of the clip as a problem with the computer modeling that was used. Basically, it looks like you're so biased against the prospect that the information being discussed could be indeed have provided evidence for the Global Flood that you're not paying attention to the overall discussion or examples provided within the clip, which should be a reactive ability for anyone viewing the clip. Basically, quite simply, you're just side tracking or defecting from the the truth, as you want to believe a hypothesis or supposition that is recycled by the atheistic community.

“Irreducible complexity is defined as a part being unable to do the same function if you reduce it, which is a patently absurd argument because, while it's true, it doesn't prove your god made anything or even that evolution is wrong.”

That God, as an Intelligent Designer, could have created a system that is irreducible complex is not wildly unreasonable by any means or stretch of the imagination, at all, in the context of our actually reality, especially when the competing concept has to be abiogenesis, which has repeatedly failed in experimental attempts to verify its viability, in comparison to all attempts to investigate the written material from the Bible. Irreducible complexity, being true, rules out it being absurd, at the same time. Clearly, right before our very eyes, we can see your bias live and in action. In order to claim it's absurd, it would mean that you had an alternative explanation that was as clear as something like the internal combustion process which you clearly don't have at your disposal to present. God expands into other fields, besides science.

“We have removed pieces of DNA that code for flagella and found that the part transforms into something that still has a useful function, just not the same function. So if a flagella's current state is mobility, we'd reduce it to less mobility, then a tail to catch food, then a basic feeler.”

This hardly makes up for the numerous other experiments that have failed to validate abiogenesis, especially to the extent that you can claim that a logical extension from the scholarly Christian community is absurd. The prime factor here is the flagella, which is already a fully functional biological system; this “still useful function” is not from just plain old chemical compounds, molecules, and elements reacting with one another to produce a biological system, without an intelligent agent involved, which is what you'd be required to show me.

“You keep saying creationism is proven much more likely but this is the only thing you've been specific about and it's far from a strong argument for proving or disproving something.”

No, what I've been doing was keeping you from diverting the topic at hand into discussions that are irrelevant to whether or not God caused the Global Flood for want of a God, which appears to be what you're trying to use, in order to claim that no global Flood actually could have occurred.

@flashfyr said:

@dshipp17: Nope, I said I'm done reading your vague and fallacious bullshit. The only engagement you'll get from me is a voice debate where you can't leave out entire parts of my argument and build up foundationless syllogisms and garbage scientific methods unimpeded. Don't worry, you'd be able to stop me too. But I already know you won't debate me like that because all your tactics rely on uncited information, my inability to clarify immediately, and your ability to ignore both questions and arguments, so I guess I really am done with you.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7649

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28681  Edited By dshipp17

@jaggernutt: Thanks; I hope you enjoy my clips and verses. More coming soon.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_majestros
king_majestros

3800

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28684  Edited By SpareHeadOne
Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28685  Edited By FlashFyr
Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

6130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Is The Kalam Cosmological Argument Really Strong Evidence For GOD ? I have heard people say that it is but it seems to be lacking. It seems to have holes where it does not get us to a Divine Creator but a potential Force that started this Reality we live in.

According to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin mathematical Theorem any universe, or multiverse, that has been on average expanding as ours has, can not be past eternal. Math is on the side of a Divine Creator on this one. If you say a "potential Force" is what created our universe, then you must explain the eternal movements and variations of the "potential Force". You also run into the Boltzmann brain problem of explaining why "universes" are not popping into existence all over the place with great frequency.

From a philosophical perspective an eternal past is impossible. If there are an eternal number of days before today, then how did we get to today? Wouldn't an eternal number of days have had to have happened first? Hilbert's hotel is often used to help explain the impossibility of an eternal past, if you are looking for a philosophical argument against an eternal past. And for the record, Vilenkin showed that the Hawking-Hartle model of an eternal past was mathematically impossible, at Hawking's birthday celebration no less. So, embrace the science. The universe had a beginning.

Avatar image for metatronx
MetatronX

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr said:

@king_saturn: I'm pretty sure Hijab used it after Craig, considering Craig started this whole thing in the 70s (?). The special pleading fallacy is to make a generalization but note one exception to save the argument. In the case of Kalam, theists argue that everything demands a cause but God doesn't. Or in the case of argument from complexity, the universe is too complex to form on its own so God needs to do it. However, God would naturally be more complex than the universe itself so he would also need a creator if we apply that logic, and then special pleading happens when theists go, "No no no God is super complex but he's the exception."

I've seen a lot of Hijab videos and arguments, which i agree with some and disagree with others, but Hijab's argument regarding Kalam Cosmological Argument, is not based solemnly on Craig. He is not the one who started this whole thing, this started since Aristotle, and was refined by many after him, like Avicenna and Al-Ghazali, who Mohammed Hijab is basing his arguments on.

Basically his argument does not only rely only on causation, but also on contingency. Basically everything in the universe is dependent/contingent on something else, and since we can't have infinite contingency, we have to stop at a first necessary entity that is independent which everything depend on.

Here is where my input come into play, the objective of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not to prove God exist directly, a personal entity as known in religion, but to prove the existence of an entity that is the first originator, the uncaused cause, the independent necessary being, regardless of its personal properties.

There is no special pleading fallacy, because the generalization (of causation or of contingency) is a natural fact, but at the same time this fact is ontologically contradictory if there is no entity that makes the exception, because of the infinite regression. And so the existence of the uncaused cause independent being is a logical conclusion.

Now after proving that there is at least an entity that represent the Creator part of God's properties, to reach the remaining full picture of God we need to introduce the religious scriptures and put them under the test of authentification (can they be proven authentic?), test of falsification(can they be proven wrong?), and test of empirical evidence, to reach which of these scriptures is the correct link to the Creator already proven.

We can also reverse the logic and start from the premise that God doesn't exist (atheist view) and will end up with many contradictions relating to the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life, the origin of the metaphysical (morality, consciousness, ...etc), which will prove the first premise that God deosn't exist is wrong.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28688  Edited By FlashFyr

@metatronx: I was saying that Craig popularized Kalam in the modern-day as a go-to argument, not that he literally started it. He obviously didn't create the Kalam argument.

"Everything is contingent on something else... except God." But you'd have to demonstrate that everything in the universe is contingent on something else which is an impossible feat without omniscience, regardless of whether the universe is eternal or had a cause.

Merely claiming that everything is contingent is setting up a problem with premises that's intuitive to you as a classical observer, then trying to solve the problem from a deductive orientation when we haven't done the inductive legwork of demonstrating that there is a problem. Doing so would require far greater exploration and discovery of the universe than we've currently done. In other words, you don't have the data to give the entire universe the properties you'd like, especially if we're going to talk about things in the past that apparently transcend natural laws—something broadly outside the things we can discover using science because positivism is about laws and their relations to everything.

> premise that God doesn't exist (atheist view)

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this. Atheists are either gnostic or agnostic, gnostic meaning they claim to know and agnostic being unconvinced. I don't have the arbitrary statistical computing power to calculate this, but from my personal experience, most atheists I've met are agnostic because "I don't know" is the correct answer without omniscience. The actual position is, "I don't know, but I'm unconvinced that a god exists because I haven't been presented with sufficient evidence to proportion confidence to that claim."

Further, merely stating that gnostic atheism generates contradictions is absurd if you're not going to state what those contradictions actually are. But I will point out that no religious model of the universe, whether creationism or Islamic cosmology and the like, has provided any prediction or explanation of the universe in the same way scientific models have. Whereas those religious "scientists" sit back, wait for others to discover something, then interpret it differently so they can match it with their unspecific, indefinite, context and translation wishy-washy holy text that can unfalsifiably mean three different things and are not answerable by a single occurrence, scientific models can predict when, where, and (most importantly) why they'll find something. Not to hang us up on this particular example, but via evolutionary model, researchers found Tiktaalik in the right part of the world, in the right rock layers, with the exact traits they predicted because the transitionary pieces were missing in the fossil record. I'm sure I don't need to point out further examples like radio waves and such, things that not only were found through predictions, but things that the models explained in a way that we could build off of and create cell phones and other technologies by tinkering with those principles. If you want to attack any of these examples, first provide a single thing that any religious model predicted with that strength and utility, and which supports their model exclusively.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250015

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28689  Edited By King_Saturn

@just_sayin said:
@king_saturn said:

Is The Kalam Cosmological Argument Really Strong Evidence For GOD ? I have heard people say that it is but it seems to be lacking. It seems to have holes where it does not get us to a Divine Creator but a potential Force that started this Reality we live in.

According to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin mathematical Theorem any universe, or multiverse, that has been on average expanding as ours has, can not be past eternal. Math is on the side of a Divine Creator on this one. If you say a "potential Force" is what created our universe, then you must explain the eternal movements and variations of the "potential Force". You also run into the Boltzmann brain problem of explaining why "universes" are not popping into existence all over the place with great frequency.

From a philosophical perspective an eternal past is impossible. If there are an eternal number of days before today, then how did we get to today? Wouldn't an eternal number of days have had to have happened first? Hilbert's hotel is often used to help explain the impossibility of an eternal past, if you are looking for a philosophical argument against an eternal past. And for the record, Vilenkin showed that the Hawking-Hartle model of an eternal past was mathematically impossible, at Hawking's birthday celebration no less. So, embrace the science. The universe had a beginning.

Saying the Universe has a Beginning is not the same as saying The Universe Begins With GOD. That is the Issue and has been. Thats why I said in my statement that Kalam only gets us to the Universe having a Potential Force starting Reality and not directly a Divine Creator.

Why do the Eternal Movements and Variations of the Potential Force have to be Explained ? Who says a Potential Force creating this Universe "Has" to be creating a bunch of different Universes ?

Also, I see I have started something here as others have jumped into the Kalam discussion.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

6130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28690  Edited By just_sayin

@just_sayin said:
@king_saturn said:

Is The Kalam Cosmological Argument Really Strong Evidence For GOD ? I have heard people say that it is but it seems to be lacking. It seems to have holes where it does not get us to a Divine Creator but a potential Force that started this Reality we live in.

According to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin mathematical Theorem any universe, or multiverse, that has been on average expanding as ours has, can not be past eternal. Math is on the side of a Divine Creator on this one. If you say a "potential Force" is what created our universe, then you must explain the eternal movements and variations of the "potential Force". You also run into the Boltzmann brain problem of explaining why "universes" are not popping into existence all over the place with great frequency.

From a philosophical perspective an eternal past is impossible. If there are an eternal number of days before today, then how did we get to today? Wouldn't an eternal number of days have had to have happened first? Hilbert's hotel is often used to help explain the impossibility of an eternal past, if you are looking for a philosophical argument against an eternal past. And for the record, Vilenkin showed that the Hawking-Hartle model of an eternal past was mathematically impossible, at Hawking's birthday celebration no less. So, embrace the science. The universe had a beginning.

Saying the Universe has a Beginning is not the same as saying The Universe Begins With GOD. That is the Issue and has been. Thats why I said in my statement that Kalam only gets us to the Universe having a Potential Force starting Reality and not directly a Divine Creator.

Also, I see I have started something here as others have jumped into the Kalam discussion.

The Kalam argument would only get so far. That's correct. However, from the evidence we can deduce some things. Since the evidence suggests the universe had a beginning we know that whatever initiated the universe is outside of space-time and therefore timeless and spaceless. The Hawkin-Hartle model suggested a eternal pre existing universe in the size no bigger than a plank (it never worked with real numbers though) but Valenkin's math seriously damaged the validity of that theory.

We know that the source of the universe must be powerful to initiate the "big bang". We also know that whatever started it all must be itself uninitiated and eternal - or else you haven't found the first cause. Since, the universe is incredibly finely tuned for live, well, actually for existence too, the source must be able to finely tune the universe and the laws needed for such a universe. If you start identifying the aspects of the universe and the specifics that are needed to create one, not even to starting one with life forms yet, you quickly realize that you are talking some very narrow windows you have to set the parameters too. You also have the impossibility of explaining why any universe making system hasn't run out of energy yet if it is eternal and expanding. In any oscillating configuration for the creation of universe whether it is expanding or a contracting universe to vibrating membranes in a de sitter space all would lose some energy or efficiency over time, and if everything is eternal, then why hasn't everything experienced the equivalent of heat death of the universe?

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

6130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr said:

@metatronx: I was saying that Craig popularized Kalam in the modern-day as a go-to argument, not that he literally started it. He obviously didn't create the Kalam argument.

"Everything is contingent on something else... except God." But you'd have to demonstrate that everything in the universe is contingent on something else which is an impossible feat without omniscience, regardless of whether the universe is eternal or had a cause.

Merely claiming that everything is contingent is setting up a problem with premises that's intuitive to you as a classical observer, then trying to solve the problem from a deductive orientation when we haven't done the inductive legwork of demonstrating that there is a problem. Doing so would require far greater exploration and discovery of the universe than we've currently done. In other words, you don't have the data to give the entire universe the properties you'd like, especially if we're going to talk about things in the past that apparently transcend natural laws—something broadly outside the things we can discover using science because positivism is about laws and their relations to everything.

> premise that God doesn't exist (atheist view)

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this. Atheists are either gnostic or agnostic, gnostic meaning they claim to know and agnostic being unconvinced. I don't have the arbitrary statistical computing power to calculate this, but from my personal experience, most atheists I've met are agnostic because "I don't know" is the correct answer without omniscience. The actual position is, "I don't know, but I'm unconvinced that a god exists because I haven't been presented with sufficient evidence to proportion confidence to that claim."

Further, merely stating that gnostic atheism generates contradictions is absurd if you're not going to state what those contradictions actually are. But I will point out that no religious model of the universe, whether creationism or Islamic cosmology and the like, has provided any prediction or explanation of the universe in the same way scientific models have. Whereas those religious "scientists" sit back, wait for others to discover something, then interpret it differently so they can match it with their unspecific, indefinite, context and translation wishy-washy holy text that can unfalsifiably mean three different things and are not answerable by a single occurrence, scientific models can predict when, where, and (most importantly) why they'll find something. Not to hang us up on this particular example, but via evolutionary model, researchers found Tiktaalik in the right part of the world, in the right rock layers, with the exact traits they predicted because the transitionary pieces were missing in the fossil record. I'm sure I don't need to point out further examples like radio waves and such, things that not only were found through predictions, but things that the models explained in a way that we could build off of and create cell phones and other technologies by tinkering with those principles. If you want to attack any of these examples, first provide a single thing that any religious model predicted with that strength and utility, and which supports their model exclusively.

Dude, everyday "scientists" believe things for which there is no evidence and for which the evidence we do have is opposed to their beliefs. So know that "scientists" are also guilty of interpreting "with their unspecific, indefinite, context and translation wishy-washy holy" viewpoints as "science" what is merely faith. A classic example is the multiverse. All evidence we have suggests it doesn't exist. Yet, it is a commonly held faith claim of scientists. Abiogenesis is another example. No one has made life from non-life, yet it is a faith claim for scientists that they can not produce an experiment to prove its truth. Maybe they are right and maybe they are not, but these are not borne out by clear evidence at this time. These are faith claims. And appeals to the the "science" of the gaps is as unconvincing as appeals to a "god" of the gaps. Less than 75 years ago the standard view was that the universe was eternal and there was no big bang.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Tetrapods and Tiktaalik

These articles show that tetrapods were around 397 million years ago

https://www.livescience.com/6004-legged-creature-footprints-force-evolution-rethink.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/pdf/nature08623.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/edsumm/e100107-01.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8443879.stm

No Caption Provided

-

-

I have drawn a black line down at the 397 million year mark to show the time of the oldest known tetrapod fossil.

Tetrapods were already walking around before the time of the earliest tiktaalik fossil. Tiktaalik is not a transitional form, rather he must be relegated to being descended from an unknown common ancestor with tetrapods, (according to evolutionary theory.)

In fact the only creatures on this chart that "predate" tetrapods are breeds of fish that are still around today.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250015

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The Kalam argument would only get so far. That's correct. However, from the evidence we can deduce some things. Since the evidence suggests the universe had a beginning we know that whatever initiated the universe is outside of space-time and therefore timeless and spaceless. The Hawkin-Hartle model suggested a eternal pre existing universe in the size no bigger than a plank (it never worked with real numbers though) but Valenkin's math seriously damaged the validity of that theory.

We know that the source of the universe must be powerful to initiate the "big bang". We also know that whatever started it all must be itself uninitiated and eternal - or else you haven't found the first cause. Since, the universe is incredibly finely tuned for live, well, actually for existence too, the source must be able to finely tune the universe and the laws needed for such a universe. If you start identifying the aspects of the universe and the specifics that are needed to create one, not even to starting one with life forms yet, you quickly realize that you are talking some very narrow windows you have to set the parameters too. You also have the impossibility of explaining why any universe making system hasn't run out of energy yet if it is eternal and expanding. In any oscillating configuration for the creation of universe whether it is expanding or a contracting universe to vibrating membranes in a de sitter space all would lose some energy or efficiency over time, and if everything is eternal, then why hasn't everything experienced the equivalent of heat death of the universe?

Well, I wanted to deal directly with The Kalam Argument but this is getting Interesting. I often wonder about the Spaceless and Timeless Being argument. I mean how can something that is Spaceless or Timeless initiate anything ? How can it have Power to do anything if it is Spaceless and Timeless ? I am not arguing for The Universe itself to be Eternal. Though I do wonder how can something that is Spaceless and Timeless be known to even really exist ?

I get something being Powerful to have to initiate The Big Bang but how can you have Power if you are Spaceless ? Don't you need Space to exhibit Power ? The finely tuned argument I always thought was Interesting. I guess my issue with that has always been if the Creator did finely tune this Universe why such massive gaps in time between the Creation of this Planet and the earlier forms of Life ? The Earth is what 4.5 Billion Years Old ? The Earliest Life On Earth is what 400 - 500 Million Years Old ? Have Humans Been On Earth Even 1 Million Years ? My point is that conditions had to come to be such that Life could exist as it does after a long period of time, and I do not know if that speaks of fine tuning. I mean even the gap between The Universe existence and The Earth's existence is at least 8 Billion Years. This is not even going into the concept that Humans came from an earlier existing Lifeform on this Earth beforehand. I do not know if this spells out Fine Tuning. Now I do not have much to say about The Universe being Eternal. I mean if the Universe as we know it has an age of 13.5 Billion Years Old, how can it be Eternal ? Or is that dealing with the State of the Universe ?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

12237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28694  Edited By SpareHeadOne

@king_saturn:

You are right

I always think of it as the clam argument, like the universe is a clam closed to outside intervention

Avatar image for king_majestros
king_majestros

3800

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@metatronx: ...

We can also reverse the logic and start from the premise that God doesn't exist (atheist view) and will end up with many contradictions relating to the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life, the origin of the metaphysical (morality, consciousness, ...etc), which will prove the first premise that God deosn't exist is wrong.

Please name every one of these contradictions that Atheists would end up with, followed by detailed explanations on how they're wrong about the origins of the cosmos, life and the metaphysical. Then, proceed to prove how God exists.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

6130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@just_sayin said:

The Kalam argument would only get so far. That's correct. However, from the evidence we can deduce some things. Since the evidence suggests the universe had a beginning we know that whatever initiated the universe is outside of space-time and therefore timeless and spaceless. The Hawkin-Hartle model suggested a eternal pre existing universe in the size no bigger than a plank (it never worked with real numbers though) but Valenkin's math seriously damaged the validity of that theory.

We know that the source of the universe must be powerful to initiate the "big bang". We also know that whatever started it all must be itself uninitiated and eternal - or else you haven't found the first cause. Since, the universe is incredibly finely tuned for live, well, actually for existence too, the source must be able to finely tune the universe and the laws needed for such a universe. If you start identifying the aspects of the universe and the specifics that are needed to create one, not even to starting one with life forms yet, you quickly realize that you are talking some very narrow windows you have to set the parameters too. You also have the impossibility of explaining why any universe making system hasn't run out of energy yet if it is eternal and expanding. In any oscillating configuration for the creation of universe whether it is expanding or a contracting universe to vibrating membranes in a de sitter space all would lose some energy or efficiency over time, and if everything is eternal, then why hasn't everything experienced the equivalent of heat death of the universe?

Well, I wanted to deal directly with The Kalam Argument but this is getting Interesting. I often wonder about the Spaceless and Timeless Being argument. I mean how can something that is Spaceless or Timeless initiate anything ? How can it have Power to do anything if it is Spaceless and Timeless ? I am not arguing for The Universe itself to be Eternal. Though I do wonder how can something that is Spaceless and Timeless be known to even really exist ?

I get something being Powerful to have to initiate The Big Bang but how can you have Power if you are Spaceless ? Don't you need Space to exhibit Power ? The finely tuned argument I always thought was Interesting. I guess my issue with that has always been if the Creator did finely tune this Universe why such massive gaps in time between the Creation of this Planet and the earlier forms of Life ? The Earth is what 4.5 Billion Years Old ? The Earliest Life On Earth is what 400 - 500 Million Years Old ? Have Humans Been On Earth Even 1 Million Years ? My point is that conditions had to come to be such that Life could exist as it does after a long period of time, and I do not know if that speaks of fine tuning. I mean even the gap between The Universe existence and The Earth's existence is at least 8 Billion Years. This is not even going into the concept that Humans came from an earlier existing Lifeform on this Earth beforehand. I do not know if this spells out Fine Tuning. Now I do not have much to say about The Universe being Eternal. I mean if the Universe as we know it has an age of 13.5 Billion Years Old, how can it be Eternal ? Or is that dealing with the State of the Universe ?

Space-time is usually how the "substance" of our universe is described. According to those in the know space and time are interconnected with some even thinking that they are not separate dimensions at all (Sean Carroll's anti-time would be a candidate for this view). When the "big bang" occurred it did not occur in a place within the universe, it occurred everywhere. Whatever triggered the universe was outside of our universe - hence outside of space-time, and therefore spaceless and timeless for the universe did not "create" itself, nor could it have existed eternally in the space of a single electron (again math says it's impossible to exist eternally with fluctuations and variations occurring in a plank space).

To answer your question, what could trigger space-time to go "bang" - a disembodied mind, at least that is William Lane Craig's response. He follows it up with discussing the need to explain how something eternally existing could suddenly be triggered, especially the size of an entire universe.

The fine tuning argument, is not so much about what conditions you need to have life, but the conditions you need to have a universe at all. Some examples:

Weak Nuclear Force. .This is one of the four fundamental forces of nature which operates within the nucleus of the atom, is so finely tuned that a change of only one part out of 10^100 at the time of the initial formation of the universe would have prevented a life-permitting universe from forming.

Cosmological Constant. A change in the value of the cosmological constant that provides a repulsive force which counteracts gravity and results in an expansion of the universe – needs a precision of one part in 10^120; otherwise, the universe would be rendered life-prohibiting.

To put things in perspective for you about how precise that is. If I remember correctly, there are 10^80 subattomic particles in the whole universe. So we are talking about a variance so small it would be the equivalent of what amounts to 1 to 2 subatomic particles over the whole scale of the universe. This slight change in the the forces that create gravity would have resulted in gravity being too strong for a universe to form or gravity being too weak to allow for matter to form.

Another example:

Entropy and Thermodynamic Considerations. Now consider the entire universe we now know – all the stars, planets, and galaxies – condensed into a tiny point called a Planck length of 10^-34 meters (the smallest distance possible). When the universe is compressed into the tiniest point possible, it is immensely more organized (less chaotic or less entropic) than the current universe. Roger Penrose (co-writer with Hawking) of Oxford University has calculated that the chance of this low-entropic state spontaneously coming into existence by chance is one chance in approximately 10^10^123 – a number so vastly small as to be inconceivable. Penrose notes that if you tried to estimate this probability by writing out 1 followed by zeroes, you would have to write out many more zeroes than there are atomic particles in the universe – clearly an impossible task. To be fair, this degree of organization is not required for life – but nonetheless that is the situation during the very earliest moments of creation. Penrose makes this statement,

This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1′ followed by 10123 successive `0 ‘s! Even if we were to write a `0’ on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s) which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.

See http://thereasons.org/reasons-2/universe-fine-tune/examples-of-fine-tuning/ for fine tuning examples.

Avatar image for metatronx
MetatronX

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28697  Edited By MetatronX

@flashfyr:

"Everything is contingent on something else... except God." But you'd have to demonstrate that everything in the universe is contingent on something else which is an impossible feat without omniscience, regardless of whether the universe is eternal or had a cause.

Merely claiming that everything is contingent is setting up a problem with premises that's intuitive to you as a classical observer, then trying to solve the problem from a deductive orientation when we haven't done the inductive legwork of demonstrating that there is a problem. Doing so would require far greater exploration and discovery of the universe than we've currently done. In other words, you don't have the data to give the entire universe the properties you'd like, especially if we're going to talk about things in the past that apparently transcend natural laws—something broadly outside the things we can discover using science because positivism is about laws and their relations to everything.

You praise the scientific models and take them as worthy source of trusty knowledge, which i have no problem with, then here, you completely contradict yourself by rejecting the "generalization" principle, by asking for omniscience or omni-mesure of the universe as minimum requirement for knowledge, forgetting that the generalization is a principle of the scientific method. You simply can't formulate a scientific theory or model without generalization. And coming back to the subject at hand, "everything is contingent on something else" is scientifically accurate, and is undeniable going by the standards that you praised, hence as a result there must exist an entity that is an uncaused cause and independent upon which every other thing depends.

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this. Atheists are either gnostic or agnostic, gnostic meaning they claim to know and agnostic being unconvinced. I don't have the arbitrary statistical computing power to calculate this, but from my personal experience, most atheists I've met are agnostic because "I don't know" is the correct answer without omniscience. The actual position is, "I don't know, but I'm unconvinced that a god exists because I haven't been presented with sufficient evidence to proportion confidence to that claim."

Atheist, agnostic, gnostic, antitheist, ...etc are just semantics to me, the important part is by not believing in God you make your very existence contradictory, i'll come to this later, but what i want to address now is the seemingly "hypocrite" belief of atheists, who when it comes to God they become "Ultra-Skeptic" asking for superb wishful evidences on their terms instead of God's terms, but when it comes to their mundane life they lower the skeptic-meter to reasonable degrees. Why not keep the same standards? For example why not ask yourself are your parents really your parents? by reasonable skepticism, giving the data presented in your life experience, family testimonies, you can assume convincingly that they are really your parents even if this data is not really enough, with "Ultra-Skepticism" unless you have a dna test you will never have enough proof.

Why not ask yourself if the person calling you on your phone is really the person you think is? by reasonable skepticism, giving the data presented in front of you the phone number, the name, the voice, you assume with conviction it's the person you know, but it can be an imposter with good impression skills. With "Ultra-Skepticism"you should not just doubt but assume every person calling you is not the person you know until more evidence is provided. And that is hilarious, but the truth is that you are doing the same when questioning God's existence. Even if you are given enough evidence, it's always not enough.

Further, merely stating that gnostic atheism generates contradictions is absurd if you're not going to state what those contradictions actually are.

What's really absurd is not believing in God, yet still value yourself in almost every aspect, what's the value of life without God, what's the value of morality without God, what's the value of consciousness without God? Without God, every living being is but a pile of molecules, a meat robot controlled by chemicals, with zero accountability, with value no different than any other organism or object, there is no difference between a human and the crap he puts in the toilet, why should you consider continue living?

Without God, why consider morality? survive is for the fittest. Giving enough power, you can make people miserable and enjoy it without anyone judging or punishing you, zero consequence.

But I will point out that no religious model of the universe, whether creationism or Islamic cosmology and the like, has provided any prediction or explanation of the universe in the same way scientific models have. Whereas those religious "scientists" sit back, wait for others to discover something, then interpret it differently so they can match it with their unspecific, indefinite, context and translation wishy-washy holy text that can unfalsifiably mean three different things and are not answerable by a single occurrence, scientific models can predict when, where, and (most importantly) why they'll find something. Not to hang us up on this particular example, but via evolutionary model, researchers found Tiktaalik in the right part of the world, in the right rock layers, with the exact traits they predicted because the transitionary pieces were missing in the fossil record. I'm sure I don't need to point out further examples like radio waves and such, things that not only were found through predictions, but things that the models explained in a way that we could build off of and create cell phones and other technologies by tinkering with those principles. If you want to attack any of these examples, first provide a single thing that any religious model predicted with that strength and utility, and which supports their model exclusively

If you are asking for reusable models and formulas for scientific advancing, then you don't understand the purpose of religious scriptures, they are not scientific books, they are guidebooks with signs of natural facts or other types of facts impossible to be fabricated by human being which proves that the knowledge of these signs is divine in nature.

And yes, if you are interested and asking for the signs i can provide you with many signs with unequivocal unambiguous meanings which people of old eras understood them and their understanding corresponds to the latest discoveries impossible to be known naturally before except by divine source.

And about your example for evolutionary model, there is a lot controversial things about it that can be discussed, but i see someone already tackling it so i'll leave it to him.

Avatar image for metatronx
MetatronX

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_majestros:

what i mean, without going too much into detail, by believing there is no God, your very essence lose all metaphysical value.

can you tell me what's the value of life without God? what's the value of morality without God? what's the value of consciousness without God?

Without God, every living being is but a pile of molecules, a meat robot controlled by chemicals, with zero accountability, with value no different than any other organism or object, there is no difference between a human and the crap he puts in the toilet, living or dying is all the same.

Without God, why consider morality? survive is for the fittest. Giving enough power, you can make people miserable and enjoy it without anyone judging or punishing you, zero consequences.

Avatar image for king_majestros
king_majestros

3800

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@metatronx: What are these contradictions that you're tagging Atheists with? Please, use detail.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250015

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Space-time is usually how the "substance" of our universe is described. According to those in the know space and time are interconnected with some even thinking that they are not separate dimensions at all (Sean Carroll's anti-time would be a candidate for this view). When the "big bang" occurred it did not occur in a place within the universe, it occurred everywhere. Whatever triggered the universe was outside of our universe - hence outside of space-time, and therefore spaceless and timeless for the universe did not "create" itself, nor could it have existed eternally in the space of a single electron (again math says it's impossible to exist eternally with fluctuations and variations occurring in a plank space).

To answer your question, what could trigger space-time to go "bang" - a disembodied mind, at least that is William Lane Craig's response. He follows it up with discussing the need to explain how something eternally existing could suddenly be triggered, especially the size of an entire universe.

The fine tuning argument, is not so much about what conditions you need to have life, but the conditions you need to have a universe at all. Some examples:

Weak Nuclear Force. .This is one of the four fundamental forces of nature which operates within the nucleus of the atom, is so finely tuned that a change of only one part out of 10^100 at the time of the initial formation of the universe would have prevented a life-permitting universe from forming.

Cosmological Constant. A change in the value of the cosmological constant that provides a repulsive force which counteracts gravity and results in an expansion of the universe – needs a precision of one part in 10^120; otherwise, the universe would be rendered life-prohibiting.

To put things in perspective for you about how precise that is. If I remember correctly, there are 10^80 subattomic particles in the whole universe. So we are talking about a variance so small it would be the equivalent of what amounts to 1 to 2 subatomic particles over the whole scale of the universe. This slight change in the the forces that create gravity would have resulted in gravity being too strong for a universe to form or gravity being too weak to allow for matter to form.

But the Question still remains, How does something outside of Space - Time create anything or have any power to do so ?

A Disembodied Mind. How does a Disembodied Mind have the Power to Create or Cause to Be ? We say GOD can do anything within the means of Logic. Well is it Logical to think a Disembodied Mind can cause the Universe to be ? I don't know, it sounds rather unusual. Then again, I do not know the nature of the Potential Force that caused the Universe to be so that could be a Disembodied Mind.

While we can see that the Math to creating the very forces that structure the Universe is Immense in Precision. I feel like that only gets us to an Unknown or Potential Force as these calculations show the nature of how precise conditions have to be for The Universe and to have any Potential Life, not just Human Life. Considering the journey of how we get to having early Lifeform into having more Complex Life and into having Humans come from earlier Lifeforms, I do not know if the Fine Tuning Argument works well for a Divine Creator. At least not of the nature that we often speak of in this Forum.