Print
The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
by Christadelphian.org
Steve sends us in this great little bit:
"Hi,
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, November 19, 2006 | PermalinkComments 501 - 550 of 1742 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers502. Comment #16725 by down_under on January 8, 2007 at 10:38 am
MarkIf you can honestly read the bible, put it under scrutiny, and still belive it, then i dont understand how
however, its your choice and your opinion, at the end of the day thats all it is....opinions, and the beauty of living in the 21st century western world is that everyone is entitled to their own.....even though we hugley disagree!
also i have nothing but admiration for your admitting it concerns you when you cant answer questions (i think you quoted one of billys) most theists wouldnt admit something like that..... almost makes me want you to find an answer! he he
and im pleased that you appreciate the importance of evaluating other religious texts, especially one as popular as the Koran!
If you wish to see comments from people who really do put the bible under scrutniy this is an interesting website
they also evaluate the book of mormon and the Koran
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Other Comments by down_under
503. Comment #16726 by down_under on January 8, 2007 at 10:41 am
For Theo and comments i have yet to answer from shaunIm off to play poker now (gasp gambling!! lol not illegal here tho! woohoo!!) so il get round to your comments asap, either later on today or soe point tommorrow
i do have one question on the snake for theo tho (sorry if youve already answered this)
But if God put the snake there t test adam and eves faith....then why was the snake punished? it was only doing gods will, and god (seeing al past present and future as he does) would know what the snake was going to do anyway?
and on the snakes punishment....slither on your belly for all time? how did it get around before?
and eat dust? i know of no snakes that eat dust
and punishing all snakes for the mistake of one! bit unjust! that would be like imprisoning all the next generations of a murderer!
and all the modern snakes cant even talk!! ;-)
Other Comments by down_under
504. Comment #16727 by Theo on January 8, 2007 at 10:43 am
J.C. Samuelson,Your statement here is indicative of that same kind of thinking, because you seem to accept the Bible uncritically, and would likely demand evidence that it is not what it purports to be. Confident that it never will be "disproven" (since proving a negative - or discrediting alleged miracles of antiquity - is impossible), you have shifted the burden of proof in your mind and feel safe making the statement that you would cease to accept its divine authorship if your conditions were met. Or, at least that's what it looks like from here, and it fits previous experiences with theists.
I agree with this point, that is why I don't like speaking about the miracles of the bible until the issue of Gods existence is cleared up. Miracles are dependent on Gods existence, if God does not exist, only natural laws rule thus negating the possibility of supernatural occurrence. If he does, then that changes everything, do you understand where I am coming from?
Any plan under this model must allow for change, because free will means the possibility of divergence from that plan..
Free will is the ability to choose from an array of choices. Many options are at hand however, at the end of it all, one choice is made. After that choice is made the possibility of diverting from the plan is nil. Omniscience requires that the final choice be known. Any plan under this model must not allow for change but KNOW the final change.
Manipulation on God's part - to include impregnating Mary, killing all the first born of Egypt, or alternately permitting and/or restricting Satan's activities in the world, and many others - constitutes the destruction of choice
The ultimate joy for a Jewish woman would have been to bring forth the Messiah. God did not force her to do it because she would have all to happily accepted the responsibility. The pharaoh chose to kill the first born. Satan presents opportunities for disobedience for which choices have to be made.
Imagine if Adam & Eve had not eaten the fruit. What place for Jesus in a sinless world?
That would have meant that God did not know what would have happened
thus relinquishing him of holding the ability of omniscience.
. . . All of the players, all of the props, and yes, even the script were of his making.
In the context of the garden of Eden:
Players: yes
Props: yes
Scripts: no, this was done on free will.
My apologies. I admit that on a second reading you did not say what I thought you were saying. I was hasty, and this is only the first time in the latter post. Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say.
Apologies accepted
Other ideas include the clay crystal theory, and various hybrid theories. I'm loathe to quote purely Internet authority, but for simplicity's sake (I don't exactly have endless amounts of time to lay it all out here) and because it is readable and can be used as a jumping off point for further reading, here's the Wikipedia article on the Origins of Life. The terms there can then be searched, either online or off to find more reliable and complete information. Abiogenesis is relatively young, and no one has completely closed the book on any of the possibilities just yet. That's just the way science works until a workable hypothesis evolves into a theory. Even then the tests never really cease.
I am familiar with the clay theory and the other theories has I already possess that wikipedia article but a sincere thanks anyway (btw the previous links were quit helpful, thanks).
But if I am not mistaking all those alternative theories all fall under the umbrella of spontaneous generation (by which I mean life arising out of non living material)
These theories have been tested and did not result in a self replicating cell. In this context my question remains unanswered.
Other Comments by Theo
505. Comment #16771 by Mark Taunton on January 8, 2007 at 3:22 pm
To J.C. Samuelson: Your comment (582) raised some important issues which deserve an answer. I am in process of composing a reply, but am operating at rather below 100%, for reasons I won't go into. Please excuse my slowness. I have given up trying to finish it tonight, but may do so tomorrow morning. Thanks for listening! Other Comments by Mark Taunton
506. Comment #16773 by Mark Taunton on January 8, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Irate Harry (651):Christianity, unacceptable to the majority of the world, continues to try and impose its totalitarian tendencies. What the bible-bashers are doing in the US is not much different from the shameful Crusades, and we hear some of the echoes here in the UK.
You seem to be sweeping yor tar brush a little too widely. Can I suggest you do a little research on Christadelphians? Amongst other ways in which we are different from the "Christianity" you speak of, we stand completely aside from politics, and are conscientious objectors to military service. We would in no way associate or ally ourselves with anyone involved in those high-level power struggles over social, medical or educational policy, in the US or anywhere else. In this we seek only to follow the example of Jesus, and his faithful disciples in past times.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
507. Comment #16784 by J.C. Samuelson on January 8, 2007 at 6:56 pm
@ 658. Comment #16727 by Theo"Miracles are dependent on Gods existence, if God does not exist, only natural laws rule thus negating the possibility of supernatural occurrence. If he does, then that changes everything, do you understand where I am coming from?"
Yes, I understand you; without God there is no supernatural, and without the supernatural there is no necessity for God. This is very similar to scripture confirming God, and God confirming scripture. I simply wish that theists could see the circular reasoning (and other fallacious modes of thought) required to justify such a belief.
"After that choice is made the possibility of diverting from the plan is nil. Omniscience requires that the final choice be known. Any plan under this model must not allow for change but KNOW the final change."
Maybe I'm suffering from a lack of imagination, but this set of statements appear to defeat your position on free will.
I agree that after a choice is made, the subsequent path is chosen until another choice is required. However, the point is that the choice was known before it was made. Therefore, the path was preordained - there was no possibility whatsoever that the players in the Garden would choose anything else. As you said, omniscience requires that the final choice be known, and if the biblical account is correct, it was. That is entirely the point.
The last part of the last sentence makes no sense at all, though this sentence as a whole does yet more violence to your position. You admit that God's plan must not allow for change. Thus, Adam & Eve could not have chosen not to eat, which would have nullified Original Sin and eliminated the need for atonement. Ergo, God's plan of salvation would have had to take a different path. There's no getting around this that I can see.
Why does the last part make no sense? If there is no change, there is naturally no final change either. Or did you mean "choice?"
"The ultimate joy for a Jewish woman would have been to bring forth the Messiah."
Really? And your basis for this psychological analysis of not just any generic Jewish woman but Mary in particular is what? You could be right - or you could be wrong, because none of us knows what the deepest desires of our long dead ancestors consisted of. In any case, this is really irrelevant to the argument over free will.
The bottom line is, Mary was not given a choice. Whatever her desires might have been, she was not given the option to decline. Ultimately for free will to operate, people must (as you said) be able to choose from an array of options. That did not happen in this account. In keeping with previous demonstrations of God's will with regard to children (Sarah, et. al.), Mary really had no choice at all whether to become pregnant or not.
"The pharaoh chose to kill the first born."
Sure. Right after "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. 11:10). Don't think this might constitute influencing the decision-making process, do you?
"Satan presents opportunities for disobedience for which choices have to be made."
But not without God's permission. See the Book of Job for one example.
""Imagine if Adam & Eve had not eaten the fruit. What place for Jesus in a sinless world?""
"That would have meant that God did not know what would have happened thus relinquishing him of holding the ability of omniscience."
Exactly! Therefore, Adam & Eve could not make any other choice than that which was in accord with God's plan; they were not free to refrain from eating the fruit. Otherwise, as you just said, God would not have the quality of omniscience.
It's gratifying to find we agree on this.
In the context of the garden of Eden:
Players: yes
Props: yes
Scripts: no, this was done on free will."
Ah, but you just stated otherwise. See above.
"But if I am not mistaking all those alternative theories all fall under the umbrella of spontaneous generation (by which I mean life arising out of non living material). These theories have been tested and did not result in a self replicating cell. In this context my question remains unanswered."
I'll concede that they may fall under the same broad umbrella. However, if one hypothesis pertaining to S.G. fails, that does not mean they all do. In other words, S.G. has not been falsified in the broad sense you used in the earlier post that I was responding to. As yet, the question of how & when does indeed remain unanswered (leaving the "why" to philosophers).
In any case, the larger point still stands; special creation does not win by default. If S.C. wants to be considered a scientific theory, proponents must present evidence of their own, rather than simply criticizing any evidence belonging to another theory (which has been the modus operandi of creationists from time out of mind).
@ 659. #16771 by Mark Taunton
"To J.C. Samuelson: Your comment (582) raised some important issues which deserve an answer. I am in process of composing a reply, but am operating at rather below 100%, for reasons I won't go into. Please excuse my slowness. I have given up trying to finish it tonight, but may do so tomorrow morning. Thanks for listening!"
Take your time, and thanks for sparing some of it already. I'm plenty slow enough myself, and would never begrudge anyone the courtesy of taking as long as they like. I'm looking forward to reading your response!
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
508. Comment #16847 by J.C. Samuelson on January 9, 2007 at 7:03 am
@ 640. Comment #16614 by shauntheboy "Perhaps you could provide us with specific examples of the sexism you accuse Him of?"
The list of passages at the following site should give a sense of the sexism that is prevalent throughout the Bible. The site itself tends toward a strict interpretation of each and every possible verse that might be relevant, but because of this it gives a great snapshot of biblical teaching on a topic. Overwhelmingly, God is demonstrated as having and fostering an opinion of females as lesser creatures (i.e., he is sexist).
CLICK HERE
"I can accept that the Creator of the universe, an omnipotent, omniscient being, would be equipped to make such a judgement justly...From a human perspective I completely agree with you, as the Bible teaches consistently, no human being in his or her own right has the authority to take the life of another. But these accounts are not written from a human perspective."
Forgive me, but are you honestly suggesting that the many unborn babies, newborns, children, and animals slaughtered by the Lord your God must have deserved their fate?
@ 648. Comment #16708 by Theo
"If indeed there was a creator, the next question would be who created the creator, obviously someone with greater power and intelligence. And who created that creator? It would also have to be someone with greater power and intelligence, and so it would keep on going where it would point to a being possessing infinite qualities, an eternal ultimate creator. Which just so happen to be type of Being described in the bible."
Unfortunately, this doesn't solve the problem of infinite regress. Each successive declaration that a "bigger & better" creator was involved continues the question begging. Attempts to halt infinite regress (as you have here) are always arbitrary.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
509. Comment #16857 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 9, 2007 at 8:27 am
>>Comment #16723 by fonex_86<<A great post fonex! I couldn't agree with you more!
When I was 11, my parents made me go to the Christadelphians on Sundays. We attended for 6 weeks. Each week we'd be lectured for 2 hours. Then we were told to go home and memorize a page from the Bible.
My younger brother [who is junior by 4 years], also came. When we'd return, the following week, both he and I would sit in the vast-circle of God-botherers, [with our heads down!], reciting the quadswallop that we'd remembered the week before.
WHAT A COMPLETE LOAD OF TOSH!
The point is here, what can be learnt from the Bible? Erm. Intolerance. Misunderstandings. Vague supernatural references. A misanthropic God. Killing. Ritual Rape. Infanticide. Slave Beating.
Oh yes. Truly fantastic in wonderous message, is the Bible.
I am on chapter 5 of The God Delusion. I can't see what Theists are moaning about. I fully concur with Professor Dawkins. No God who truly cared for us, would allow little children to die. No God who truly loved us, would dream up wonderous ways of dying such as, Ebola, HIV/ AIDS, cancer or any of the thousands of other nasty diseases, we seem so prone to.
And if he is there [my doubt is now at 99%], then he isn't fit for worship. You wait until I shovel off my mortal coil. I'll tell him what I think of his Bible, his nasty hatred for us as a species and how I now give the Devil my full support - seeing as he hardly killed anybody in the Bible, yet God seems to get some kind of thrill-kill out of watching mankind dying.
I think the Theistic God [if he exists] must be vermin.
Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief
510. Comment #16867 by down_under on January 9, 2007 at 9:57 am
THEO:ONE FOR THEO!!!! (dont ignore theo you do that alot)
You said:
"Well that depends on what your definition of a giant is. I am thinking men of large stature. The tallest normal man in the world measures around 7 foot 8. I would truly feel like a grasshopper in his presence! It is reasonable that the nephilim could have probably been larger too."
I would assume the biblical "giants" were literall Giants much like the unicorn (ok disputed) and the Dragon in revalations
however, if we assume that by giants they mean "tall people" then why does the bible say "there were giants then" Genesis 6: 1-4
assuming there are none anymore? we know there are so explain
also, if we assume you can explain that, then do you belive that "tall people" (say 7ft or over) were created by demons cross-breeding with humans????
The fact that you have continously refused to answer this question makes me think you know how ridiculous it (and therefore the bible) is!!
PLEASE THEO ANSWER YES OR NO!!!!
you also quoted me saying:
"as far as i can see, the snake spoke of his own accord......without your omnipitant God even knowing about it!!!!! (emp. Added)"
then said
"That's the problem right there."
OK then smart arse! (avoiding answers with sarcastic comments will get you nowhere with me) The snake WAS talking of its own accord, it was not God speaking through the snake
So do you belive animals could talk??
you also said
"Thought you did not fancy bible quoting? Fortunately (or unfortunately in some circumstances) simple reading and understanding is required for this."
Theo, you are constatnly avoiding answers (and childlishly claiming i cant read), so surly you must realise how pathetic you look
I only do not fancy bible quotes if you are trying to proove history or science becasuse
a) The bible as a historical reference is laughable
b) the bible as a scientific docmuent is offensive!
however we are questioning the bible itself and i was using quotes to show you how stupid and innacurate it is
you said the snake was sent to test faith, i asked where it said that
So answer me!! WHERE DOES IT SAY THE SNAKE WAS SENT TO TEST FAITH???
also see my later comment on that!! it catches you out no matter what.........prooving the innacuracy of the bible
This is fun theo, you really are stupid, next quote:
"Yeah d_u, the thousands and thousands of fossils to represent the billions upon billions of lifeforms that ever existed makes them preeeetty rare."
Theo you're a moron!! your logic is soooo 1 dimensional!!! although as a theist it is expected!
OK yes, by comparison to how many lifeforms lived (billions and billions as you said) and considering how long they lived for (250 million years in the dinosaurs case) then yes, BY COMPARISON fossils are rare
ofcourse by that logic humans are rare because the 6 billion left is nothing compared to the billions that have lived and died over the past 10's of thousands of years!!
this does not mean they are actually rare!! they are everywhere!! (like modern humans) and the fact that what we have discovered all "agree" with eachother in terms of what they were, how they lived, where they lived, how old they are and the fact that we have learned so much from such a small percentage, then i think its pretty damn impressive!
you quoted
"The fossil record should not be resorted to as a surefire way of determining co existence:"
nothing in science is surefire, that is what is so brilliant about it becuase it means things are always beig questioned and tested (unlike religion and faith), the fossil records are normally 1 - 10 million years off......but thats actually pretty damn accurate considering and therefore is a very good way of looking at it.
and no matter how you look at it the dinosaurs were gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before the dodo so my point stands
"plus its FAR easier to belive matter came from nothing as its nothing more than a few atoms, (me)
Really? Something had to have always existed whether it is matter, energy, singularity, super strings or a creator. (theo)"
I didnt say that theo quote my whole statement, i said scientists dont know where anything came from (that doesnt mean its god) and therfore until we know have to assume atoms came from nothing
and YES theo you moron it is easier to assume that 2 microscopic atoms came from nothing than a huge intelligent thinking complex human looking (in our image remember theo) being!!! as i previously stated intelligence is immensly complex, and god would be more complex than the universe he created so YES THEO YES!!! not very complex atoms from nothing is a millions times easier to accept!!!!!
I said "you belive a complex intelligent being has just always been there.....my friend that is ludicrus and impossible"
you responded "Don't you mean improbable?"
hah hah hah hah theo!!! you just admited your own belief is improbable!!! hah hah hah!! brilliant!!! more than i coudl've hoped for!
so even knowing how improbable your god is dont you feel silly worshipping him?
and may i also add then yes, a creator is improbable (highly infact) but sciences answers are HIGHLY PROBABLE! so ponder on that for a while
you then added
"Shauntheboy answered a few of the questions within your post. I will just add to them
"Isnt it a nice co-incidence that you were convineantly Born into the correct religion aswell!! I feel sorry for all those people born in places like Iraq and India, who will burn in hell jsut for being born in the wrong country!! man what a fair and loving God you worship!"
Christianity is known in those regions, its their job to choose what is true and what is false".
No,. it is the job of the parents and society to force the religion on the children and hope they never grow out of it.
"If th great flood kiled the dinosaurs (haha) THEN WHAT KILLED THE FLYING AND SWIMMING DINOSAURS?!?! this one is always brushed over by theists. "That 2 of EVERY ANIMAL!! (now trust me thats ALOT!! there are several species of Wallaby alone!) all fit on 1 boat then somehow managed to redistribute themselves to their respective habitats!!!
Koalas going back to Australia, Polar bears to the arctic, etc etc" (me)
See comment 574" (response)
comment 574 answered nothing
"how languages have evolved (Spanish and French from latin, English and German from Germanic etc etc) is ignored? (me)
I asked for proof of this remember?" (response)
it is a well known fact!
infact if you speak more than 1 language you will see the similarities! in portugese and spanish, swedish and german etc etc
if you compare spanish to latin you will again see the similaarites, you can actually see tha languages evolve!
but just for your mornic theist mind, here is some evidence
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/la1.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_linguistics
sorry that was so long and a bit confusing, had alot to get through!
man it was fun, theo i love debating with theists like you because your minds are so simple and your logic so baffaling!
also have you got round to answering any more of my questions yet? the ones you said you could but then ignored? i hope you do answer them rather than just predtend they dont exist and get back to your blind faith, like you seem to keep doing
i'll be waiting.............
Other Comments by down_under
511. Comment #16872 by down_under on January 9, 2007 at 10:18 am
THEO AND SHAUNComment 574 explains nothing (as i stated above) because
quoted
"Although Genesis is silent on it, there are many theories on the redistribution of the animals. From temporary land bridges, slow redistribution over a period of time"
If you knew anything about animals and how they need their habitats to survive you would know this is impossible many animals (like koalas) haves pecific diets that they would die if they went without even for a few days
given the various different animals and habitats required those 2 theorys are impossible
as for
"and the fact that if God brought the animals to the ark by supernatural intervention He could redistribute them by it too"
doesnt that simply defeat the object of noahs ark in the first place? god could just save all the animals by "devine intervention" or better yet, simply re-create them all afer the flood, why did he need to save any at all?
im sorry but the "god can do anything" argument explains nothing and is just superstition, it is ridiculous
and as for the flying and swimming dinosaurs dying without catastrophe
yes we do know of it before, through the very fossil records you slander so much
inact themdying without catastrophy would take millions of years and is (yet another) argument where yu have shot yourself in the foot
you also failed to comment on how all those animals (alot remember, especially if you belive that the dinosaurs were on the ark, and id love to imagine 2 brachiosauruses on there....among all the other sauropods, theropods, hadrosaurs etc etc) managed to fit on the ark!
Other Comments by down_under
512. Comment #16873 by down_under on January 9, 2007 at 10:21 am
THEO, ON THE SNAKEi said i had another comment about the snake, here it is, have fun!
If God put the snake there to test adam and eves faith....then why was the snake punished?
it was only doing gods will, and god (seeing all past present and future as he does) would know what the snake was going to do anyway?
and on the snakes punishment....slither on your belly for all time? how did it get around before? hop on its tail perhaps?
and eat dust? i know of no snakes that eat dust
and punishing all snakes for the mistake of one! bit unjust!
that would be like imprisoning all the next generations of a murderer!
and all the modern snakes cant even talk!! ;-)
Other Comments by down_under
513. Comment #16874 by down_under on January 9, 2007 at 10:27 am
Shaun on the evoloution of languagesit is a well known fact!
infact if you speak more than 1 language you will see the similarities! in portugese and spanish, swedish and german etc etc
if you compare spanish to latin you will again see the similaarites, you can actually see tha languages evolve!
infact Spanish, Portugese, Italian, and French are called the Latin languages!
German, English, Swedish, Danish, and Norweigan the Germanic languages!
And Danes and Swedes can understand eachother speaking their own languages........deeats the point of the tower of babel no?
but here is some evidence
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/la1.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_linguistics
ALSO THEO AND SHAUN ON THE TOWER OF BABEL
God scattered everyone because he thought we would reach heaven? is heaven in the sky?
whywerent the americans scattered when they invented the plane and english changed?
Why werent the russians scattered when they put a man in space and russian changed?
Why did god think a tower would reach him? he's not very bright is he!
Gen11:4
And apparantly there were already many languages before the tower of babel anyway, did god simply forget? not very all knowing is he (note he had to come down to see the tower.....he didnt already know it was going to happen or that it was there....odd if he sees past future and present)
Genesis 10:5
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue.
Genesis 10:20
These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues.
Genesis 10:31
These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues.
Other Comments by down_under
514. Comment #16875 by gimlibengloin on January 9, 2007 at 10:30 am
Billy SandsSorry about this but I can't find your response to my last post as JS so when you read this do be so kind as to tell me where it is.
Thanks
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
515. Comment #16876 by down_under on January 9, 2007 at 10:33 am
ShaunConcerning women in the bible
Eve also gets all the blame for the original sin (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Eph. 5:21, Col. 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn't get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful (Gen.3:16). Yep, God hates women!
Other Comments by down_under
516. Comment #16881 by down_under on January 9, 2007 at 11:18 am
Sorry to all if i appear to be flooding (noah - flooding! haha my silly puns) but iv just got alot to get thro :-SThis is to THEO once again! (who else!)
and in response to my obsession with the unicorn
ofcourse im obsessed with the word unicorn!! it says "unicorn" in the friggin bible!!!! regardless of what translation there is a bible translation out there with the word "unicorn" in!!!! a fictional mythical beast! in the bible!!! i think its hillarious!!! and its not alone, dragons, giants and talking snakes made it in there too!!!
and also theo......YET ANOTHER comment you ignored
"Theo:
"The account of the Genesis Flood hardly stands alone in human history. Researchers have described over 100 flood traditions from Europe, Asia, Australia, the East Indies, the Americas, East Africa, and many other places. "
Yes but were they ALL atthe same time covering the entire surface?
you have shot yourself in the foot with this one because even if they were all atthe same time then that would mean that more people survived than those on the ark....with no records as to how......therefore making that story either a lie or these people would have survived without your all kowing all seeing god realising."
please stop ignoring important questions like these theo if you just pretend they dont exist it says alot about your belief (and your brain)
if the noah story was true....as you belive.... then this should be a simple straightforward question to answer
Other Comments by down_under
517. Comment #16883 by Theo on January 9, 2007 at 11:29 am
J.C. Samuelson,Yes, I understand you; without God there is no supernatural, and without the supernatural there is no necessity for God. This is very similar to scripture confirming God, and God confirming scripture. I simply wish that theists could see the circular reasoning (and other fallacious modes of thought) required to justify such a belief.
I would be very frustrated by the same thing, that is why I do not use such circular reasoning. I hope this statement was for other theists, if it was for me, then for the third time, the bible was not my basis for the existence of God. If there is any issue concerning the bible, its whether its inspired or not, if it was written by God or not, that's all, not the bible proving Gods existence
The last part of the last sentence makes no sense at all, though this sentence as a whole does yet more violence to your position. You admit that God's plan must not allow for change. Thus, Adam & Eve could not have chosen not to eat, which would have nullified Original Sin and eliminated the need for atonement. Ergo, God's plan of salvation would have had to take a different path. There's no getting around this that I can see.
Sorry for confusing you, that part was really supposed to be in quotation marks and worded properly (I was in a hurry) my humblest apologies. What I meant was: its not so much a question that a "plan under this model must allow for change" but that the planner must KNOW the final change of choice.
I will not comment further until you read this correction and make a reply. Hopefully by then we may be on the same wavelength. P.S: sorry for making you reply to a bunch of stuff that did not carry the intended message.
Really? And your basis for this psychological analysis of not just any generic Jewish woman but Mary in particular is what?
There are books that describe the manners and customs of bible times, the culture of the people and the issues of importance during that time (manners and customs of bible times by Ralph Gower is a good one).
You could be right - or you could be wrong, because none of us knows what the deepest desires of our long dead ancestors consisted of.
Well, we actually know how Mary felt:
Luke 1:46-48
And Mary said:
" My soul exalts the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;
For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.
NASU
The bottom line is, Mary was not given a choice. Whatever her desires might have been, she was not given the option to decline.
Mary chose to allow God to use her, that is why she said
Luke 1:38
And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.
NASU
Sure. Right after "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. 11:10). Don't think this might constitute influencing the decision-making process, do you?
The question that should be asked is how does God harden the heart? If Gods word states something that the listener does not agree with, the listener may harden his heart at Gods word or he may soften it if he feels convicted. Therefore, Gods word may be described as hardening (or softening) ones heart. That is why, the Lord hardening pharaoh's heart and pharaoh hardening his own heart, are used interchangeably (Ex. 8:15)
In reply to my statement: "Satan presents opportunities for disobedience for which choices have to be made." You said
But not without God's permission. See the Book of Job for one example.
I am not clear as to how this takes away the choice of a person. I will admit however that a person has no choice in the matter of being presented with options by Satan (if that is what you mean)
For the comments after this, I will wait for your reply to my corrected comment.
I'll concede that they may fall under the same broad umbrella. However, if one hypothesis pertaining to S.G. fails, that does not mean they all do. In other words, S.G. has not been falsified in the broad sense you used in the earlier post that I was responding to. As yet, the question of how & when does indeed remain unanswered
Um, all the experiments on the theories concerning S.G. HAVE failed to produce a living replicating cell and thus it HAS been falsified in the broad sense!
In any case, the larger point still stands; special creation does not win by default.
I would have agreed with that statement if there was a third alternative to S.C. and S.G, meaning that if its not S.G. it does not have to be S.C but the third alternative. George Wald of Harvard stated: The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third alternative. For this reason, many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity (1954, pp. 45-53, emp. added).
In a later statement, Dr. Wald commented: "The only alternative to some form of spontaneous is a belief in supernatural creation..." (1958, p. 100).
To illustrate this further:
Mary had a little lamb. . . True or False?
Its either true or false, no third alternative
If the truth of the matter is that its not true would it not be reasonable to surmise that its false? that she did not have a lamb? It would be foolish to hold agnosticism saying we do not know. . .if it is not true then it is false.
Therefore in a situation where either two conditions apply, it means that if it is not one, the other applies by default.
There is a common misconception that we cannot know if we originated from a creator. That such a question is not falsifiable. WELL ACTUALLY IT IS FALSIFIABLE! If it is that science reports that a living self replicating cell has formed from chemical raw material, it would mean that the origin of life does not require a creator! If that happens I will revert back to atheism. But until such EVIDENCE is presented, I have to be guided by the existing data i.e. life did not originate by spontaneous generation.
Other Comments by Theo
518. Comment #16884 by gimlibengloin on January 9, 2007 at 11:32 am
Billy Sands (see 668)Don't bother, I've found your response.
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
519. Comment #16893 by down_under on January 9, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I almost feel arguing with Theo is too easy! *smirk* and when he ignores such simple questions (numerous though they are) it only further solidifies my points!Please if any theists feel they can argue the point better than theo then take the challenge
Oh and FONEX_86
re: 654. Comment #16723 by fonex_86 on January 8, 2007 at 10:28 am
GREAT COMMENT! could not have put it better myself
Other Comments by down_under
520. Comment #16946 by shauntheboy on January 9, 2007 at 5:50 pm
NLHB Said (663):When I was 11, my parents made me go to the Christadelphians on Sundays. We attended for 6 weeks. Each week we'd be lectured for 2 hours. Then we were told to go home and memorize a page from the Bible."
Wow! Which Christadelphians did you go to....?
NLHB also said:
"You wait until I shovel off my mortal coil. I'll tell him what I think of his Bible, his nasty hatred for us as a species and how I now give the Devil my full support"
Now I'm really curious as to which Christadelphians you had contact with if this is your view of our belief!!
Eccl 9:4-6
4 But for him who is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; Nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun.
Ps 49:12-14
12 Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain; he is like the beasts that perish….
14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them;…..
Curiously even great giants of faith don't appear to be "in heaven" according to the Bible!
John 8:53
53 "Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Whom do You make Yourself out to be?"
Acts 2:29
29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day."
Anyway that's an aside. I would be interested to know which Christadelphians subjected you to this though? Can you remember or is it too traumatic? :-) I apologise on their behalf if this is the way you were treated!
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
521. Comment #16949 by shauntheboy on January 9, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Anyone want to comment on posts 649 and 643? Other Comments by shauntheboy
522. Comment #16950 by J.C. Samuelson on January 9, 2007 at 6:10 pm
671. Comment #16883 by Theo "I would be very frustrated by the same thing, that is why I do not use circular reasoning..."
There seems to be a need for some clarity. I accept that the Bible is not the source for your basic adherence to the "God hypothesis." Yet this doesn't alleviate what appears to be circular reasoning (question begging) on your part. Let's see if I can outline why a little more clearly. You said:
"Miracles are dependent on Gods existence, if God does not exist, only natural laws rule thus negating the possibility of supernatural occurrence. If he does, then that changes everything, do you understand where I am coming from?"
If I read this correctly, this could be expressed as a set of premises with a conclusion thus:
1. God causes miracles.
2. Miracles affirm God.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Keep in mind that "miracle" is defined broadly as that which seems to have no natural explanation. This includes (but is not limited to) things such as special creation, alleged supernatural healings, and the various magical stories found in scripture. If you prefer a more specific definition, feel free to supply one.
Would this be an accurate description of your position here? If so, surely you see the problem; the conclusion assumes the second premise, and the first premise assumes the conclusion. Basically, this argument will be considered sound only by those who already accept the conclusion.
I will wait for your reply before commenting further on that topic.
"What I meant was: its not so much a question that a "plan under this model must allow for change" but that the planner must KNOW the final change of choice."
Maybe it's me, but it's unclear how this helps your argument that the players in the Garden acted on free will. To explain...
If the planner knows what changes will happen given a range of options, he can plan for eventualities and stay on track for completion. A planner under this model must build flexibility into his design in anticipation of the consequences of certain decisions at critical points. Yet this is no different from standard consciousness; the normative way of knowing that all humans already possess.
Omniscience is quite different, as I'm sure you'd agree, in that for an omniscient being, there are no "choices" as such. There is no flexibility in an omniscient planner's design because it doesn't need any; all decisions are already known in advance. Any decision-making by those who implement an omniscient designer's plan is inconsequential and illusory. Every decision has been preordained, every contingency addressed (in fact there are no contingencies) - the plan does not allow the freedom to change it.
In simpler terms, omniscience does not require coercion or force to preempt the exercise of free will. Omniscience simply is not compatible with freedom.
It is perhaps a stroke of irony that an omniscient being would be limited by its own knowledge; unable to change its mind because it already knows what its choices will be. Omnipotence compounds the problem because it is equally all-encompassing. Thus the age old question: can God overrule himself?
So you see, free will was not a factor in the Garden, or anywhere else in the Bible.
"P.S: sorry for making you reply to a bunch of stuff that did not carry the intended message."
No worries. I tend to digress quite a bit myself. :)
"Well, we actually know how Mary felt:
Luke 1:46-48... [and the other items pertaining to Pharaoh and Satan]"
Forgive me. I got sidetracked from the main point I was clumsily trying to make when I asked for the basis of your assessment and responded to your argument re: Pharaoh and Satan.
It doesn't really matter how Mary might've felt, what she would've chosen or not; any decision she might make would have been inconsequential and illusory just as the one that was alleged to have been made in the Garden. The same could be said of Pharaoh or Satan. All the players in the Bible - and if you believe in it, us today - would be prisoners of God's omniscience.
"Um, all the experiments on the theories concerning S.G. HAVE failed to produce a living replicating cell and thus it HAS been falsified in the broad sense!"
I already conceded the point about the cell. What you failed to acknowledge is that spontaneous generation is not a dead field of study! Apparently I've failed to adequately demonstrate the reasons why. Rather than rehash this all over and repeat the mistakes of the past, I'll just point you to an essay I just found on the topic: Click here.
"George Wald of Harvard stated..."
Read a bit more about your Wald quotes: Click here.
"If it is that science reports that a living self replicating cell has formed from chemical raw material, it would mean that the origin of life does not require a creator!"
Frankly, I doubt many theists would accept such a finding willingly. Indeed, should such a result be published tomorrow, we could expect decades of attempted fault-finding, criticisms of methodology - anything that would exonerate the alleged creator of the universe up to and including the invocation of a Satanic conspiracy on the part of the researchers. Here's hoping that you are not cut from the same cloth.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
523. Comment #16952 by J.C. Samuelson on January 9, 2007 at 6:20 pm
@ 675. Comment #16949 by shauntheboy "Anyone want to comment on posts 649 and 643?"
Maybe later. I'm tired just now. :)
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
524. Comment #17022 by BillySands on January 10, 2007 at 6:06 am
Guys,Due to work commitments etc, this will be my last post for a while - I'm sure some of you will be very sad. If anyone really wants a point answered, I think my email should alert me to any PMs that you may send.
Theo
"Wouldn't that require intelligent design?"
Told you that you would shift the goal posts! And no, it does not nessecitate ID, it would just show we can copy what is already there. I think creating a cell would prove only that. I think we would need a long time to let one evolve though, so start off the experiment and wake me in one billion years time. Same point to Ben Dover
"I think E=MC2 shows matter/ energy is not everlasting.
Not only that, I just remembered the concept of anti matter! Silly me!"
You'll be an atheist again soon enough
Your special appeal to a designer makes your hypothesis even more unlikely by adding even more complexity (the need to explain the existance of a complex designer). It is strange that you realise the difficulty of this approach in any possible pan-spermia explanation, but ignore it when hypothesising a designer.
If indeed there was a creator, the next question would be who created the creator, obviously someone with greater power and intelligence. And who created that creator? It would also have to be someone with greater power and intelligence, and so it would keep on going where it would point to a being possessing infinite qualities, an eternal ultimate creator. Which just so happen to be type of Being described in the bible.
No it wouldn't. Why not just state matter always existed with that logic? and cut out the added complexity of a god. This sounds very much like an arguement from incredulity, and as such has no weight to it
Mark
You still don't seem to have acknowledged that, irrespective of the precise meaning of the Hebrew word, Isaiah 36:11 prevents application of Deut 28:49 to Aramaic-speaking invaders, even city-besieging ones: "we understand it" explicitly contradicts "you will not understand". Deuteronomy 28:49-57, which is all one description of a specific invader, therefore cannot apply to Babylon.
A couple of ponts here, the word conveys clarity (like obscure regional variations btw there are dundonians and there are dundonians). Isaiah also does not tell you if all on the wall could understand it (thought Babylonians spoke Akkadian anyway. Read Lammentations, There it talks about all the points you make and ascribes them to Babylon - described as far away, mentions cannabalism etc etc.
Other Comments by BillySands
525. Comment #17042 by down_under on January 10, 2007 at 11:03 am
ShaunSorry i took so long to reply to other comments of yours, they were quite heady! long day at work and im easily confused he he
il take a stab at 643 tho......
first i would like to say that you say the bible is way ahead of other religous texts in specificity (i dont know that word haha) but i disagree
i already quoted koran prophecies just as accurate but mark simply said "oh they copied the bible" without offering any proof as to where he got that information
i have also provided links to hindu and mormon prophecies, i suggest you read them, Joseph Smith accuratly predicied the US civil war
ofcourse it depends how you translate them, but that is also true of the bible
and all the propheices "within" the bible are far more criptic than that, this quote you provided was not in the bible and was written in 1848 i belive it said.
as for how he got it accurate, well lets look at the circumstances, if you study the world around you it is easy to make an accurate prophecy
Britain was at the time a fast growing powerful empire, with a bad relationship with the turks and alot of land in the middle east.
Given israels geographical location and importance at the time, one could prophecise the British would have a large role to play in Israels future and would easily brush the turks aside
Now as for the isralies getting into israel and staying there....have you ever heard of a self fulfilling prophecy?
The bible says this will happen, therefore the jews belive with all their heart that it will, therefore they do everything in their power to make it happen, therfore it will eventually happen
Never underestimate the power of a large group of people with a dream....
also you say the bible is real because of its accurate prophecies, but neither you or mark commented on
Jules Verne (more accuratly, more recently and less cripticly predicted several future events)
and Nostradaumus, who is cripitic and requires translation, but no more so than the bible
i also provided many bible prophecies that
a) havnt come true (you could argue they will one day)
b) cant come true
and c) contradict eachother
if the bibles prophecies are so great....then how can this be?
i will also add that "thomas" like all prophets, religious or otherwise, failed to be EXACT and didnt even give a date, if he (or the bible) truly knew, neither of these would be a problem
infact the bible did give an (inaccurate) date for one event, the return of christ.......in 1914
Revelation 12:6
because of this jehovas witnesses belived it actually happened, but no-one noticed *chuckle*
i dislike the prophecy arguments because (as we stated earlier in the thread) they are too innacurate and all go down to translation and us already knowing the events that have or are taking place and therefore comparing them (like with nostradaumus)
plus you could also just argue that phycic people actally exist
do you belive in phycic people?
i also dislike them because you belive they are true i have no doubt, yet just because there are 1 or 2 accurate prophecies, does that really excuse all the other ridiculous things in the bible? (see my questions for theo for examples)
i will get round to 649 (i think it was, maybe 647 il check lol) when i have the time
Other Comments by down_under
526. Comment #17044 by down_under on January 10, 2007 at 11:22 am
Shaunare you one of these Chirstadelphians? (i sincerly hope not)
if so heres some websites i suggest you check out, just to make you think a bit more about whatyou belive in (hey! see it as an opportunity to solidify your faith!)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
http://www.evilbible.com
Other Comments by down_under
527. Comment #17055 by J.C. Samuelson on January 10, 2007 at 1:25 pm
To Theo,In order to clear this matter up, I'm writing this before you reply. It seems to me that we are arguing in circles with no hope of extracting ourselves short of capitulation on one of our parts. So, I'm going to explain both how I perceive your arguments and what my position is in relation to it as clearly as possible, and if you still disagree then so be it; we'll just agree to disagree.
Beginning with comment #16119 on 1/4 you stated the Bible isn't your evidence for believing in God. Yet before and since you have referred to the Bible quite frequently to support your theological positions. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that while your basic adherence to the "God hypothesis" may be deistic (or somewhat agnostic), you are a Christian theist through and through. That is, you may have come to your belief by logical inference, but it is the Bible that speaks to you and therefore is the scripture that you feel best describes God and His alleged relationship to His alleged creation.
Because of the above, I believe that our discussion has become an ever twisting labyrinth of obfuscation on your part. Never fear, I will explain.
In comment #16177 when I first engaged you, I addressed one of your earlier assertions about talking animals. You stated:
"God used animals to talk. An omnipotent God can do that right?"
This statement was made in the context of a biblical defense. That is, you were in the process of explaining biblical passages that had been attacked. You even stated the reasons why God placed the tree & serpent in the Garden, and why he rested on the seventh day. All of this taken from Genesis. In other words, you extracted your evidence for the character of God from the Bible! Even the mere assumptions of the Garden as a real place, Adam & Eve as real people, real talking animals, and God as a real entity who rested are based entirely on the Bible.
In response to this, I asked if you could be any less critical and suggested that you ask yourself if the authors could have been using creative license. I didn't ask if your belief was based on the Bible because you had already demonstrated that it was by your defense of some of its stories. Yet in your reply you stated essentially that God must be assumed before a discussion of biblical reliability could take place. Furthermore, you stated rather cryptically that if the Bible were "by some stretch of the imagination" to be proven false you would hold the deist position. Frankly, this strikes me as disingenuous because you've already said that no discussion of reliability can take place until the parties accept God. In other words, you're not willing to question the Bible (it is reliable), because you assume God exists.
To restate this position so as to highlight its error, you're saying that the Bible is reliable because God exists. As an alleged logical argument, it might be expressed thus:
1. If God exists the Bible is reliable.
2. God exists.
3. Therefore, the Bible is reliable.
This is circular reasoning/question begging because the conclusion is found in the premises, and the argument will only be accepted as valid by those who already accept the conclusion.
Perhaps this isn't quite right. Maybe it's just about discussing biblical reliability. If so, perhaps it should be expressed this way:
1. We can't discuss the biblical reliability if you don't accept God.
2. You don't accept God.
3. We can't discuss biblical reliability.
Even expressed that way, the argument remains circular because the conclusion resides in the premises. Again, it will only be judged sound by those who already accept the conclusion.
Nevertheless, I provisionally accepted your argument in the hopes the meaning of this would become clear. It has not. In fact, you confirmed that you accept the Bible uncritically because you assume God's existence in comment #16727 and even used the Bible to argue other topics with myself and others while at the same time saying the Bible is not the source of your belief in comment #16246 & later in #16883. One might ask where you get your information about God (other than the nebulous notion that something god-like exists) if not from the Bible? That is, one might ask this if one didn't already have the answer by your own testimony, which is demonstrated in nearly every post.
Returning to comment #16119 and assuming your argument proceeds from a deistic perspective rather than theistic, you listed four basic hypotheses pertaining to the origin of life. By logical inference, you determine that since science has thus far been unable to verify the one hypothesis you deem to be in competition with creationism, creationism wins by default. You stated categorically that:
"WE DEFINITELY KNOW FOR A FACT that life did not originate spontaneously."
You then paraphrase William Paley's "Watchmaker" argument, and declare that reason constrains you to remain a theist.
In response to this (comment #16177) I gave some admittedly paltry possibilities as to why S.G. hasn't been verified yet. Furthermore, I stated that personal incredulity is no answer, and that at best we should remain technical agnostics pending further study. I also alluded to the fact that creationism has no evidence in favor of it being considered scientific. In other words, special creation and spontaneous generation are nearly equally lacking in evidentiary support, though I went on to demonstrate in comment #16574, S.G. does have some evidence, however slight, in its favor. Creationism lacks even a smidgeon of evidence; it is an inference drawn from personal incredulity, nothing more.
Your reply was basically an insistence that your question hadn't been answered, so I thought more information would help.
In comment #16574, I again conceded (second time) that scientists thus far have been unable to spontaneously generate a living, self-replicating cell. However, I also cited some intriguing lab results (which you ignored) that might indicate spontaneous generation could take place, allowing for further study. Specifically, I cited the Miller-Urey experiment which demonstrated that organic compounds - including some of the building blocks of life - did indeed spontaneously generate. This evidence, however slight, shows that spontaneous generation of organic material does occur, and that given enough time, a living, self-replicating cell might be generated from those building blocks. Yes, it is far from an actual living, self-replicating cell. But as I said - and this was the main point of the citation - spontaneous generation has not been taken out of the lab (i.e., it is not considered to be falsified just yet). Creationism doesn't even have this tiny smidgeon of evidence in its favor!
As a final note in that post, I rephrased my objection to proposing a theory as valid based solely on logical inference.
Replying in comment #16727, you persisted in the claim that your question remained unanswered. To my dismay, you still failed to allow a nuanced approach to the problem in which spontaneous generation wasn't the failure you so quickly dismissed it as. As I read this, I'm beginning to think only one answer will satisfy you. Your insistence on using only logical inference and your arbitrary dismissal of competing theory leads me to believe you will only accept an answer that special creation is the default winner, since you rightly guess that, broadly defined, spontaneous generation is the only viable competitor.
So I responded in comment #16784 that I would concede the broad definition of spontaneous generation, but again pointed out that spontaneous generation was still a work in progress. I also conceded that the origins of life had not been answered by science - yet. However, I also repeated that creationism does not win by default.
Finally, in comment #16883 you went to yet further lengths to show there was no third alternative and that creationism does win by default. In perhaps a meaningless concession to reason, you state that if science ever reports the formation of a living cell from raw materials, you'll return to atheism. This in spite of your earlier declaration that "WE DEFINITELY KNOW FOR A FACT that life did not originate spontaneously." It is a meaningless concession also because as a creationist you automatically assume that your conditions will never be met.
So, perhaps I may be excused for misunderstanding precisely what you were getting at. The labyrinthian maze of shifting goalposts, circular reasoning, and persistent references to the Bible while claiming it's not your source has frankly given me a headache. Therefore what follows is a refutation of the idea that creationism is a viable theory equally competitive with natural abiogenesis, from both a logical and a scientific standpoint.
To begin, let me tell you a story.
There is a legend that at the turn of the 19th century, then Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office Charles H. Duell urged President McKinley to abolish the patent office on the grounds that "everything that can be invented has been invented." If true, he would have demonstrated himself to be a first-rank idiot, because everyone knows that an inability to imagine future developments does not mean they will not happen. Put another way, personal incredulity is not an argument. Period.
Fortunately for the Duell family, the legend is just that - a legend. Mr. Duell never said any such thing.
Throughout our debate you have repeatedly insisted that spontaneous generation has been falsified. Furthermore, you clearly think that scientists will never be able to report the formation of a living cell from raw materials. I submit that this is an argument from personal incredulity, which is no argument at all. Though I hardly think you are an idiot, I do think you have given yourself over to exactly this sort of fallacious thinking, at least in this area.
Both spontaneous generation and special creation are hypotheses about the origin of life. They are identical in that they are hypotheses about life arising from non-life. One is natural, one is theistic. Both are subject to study - to a point.
Natural abiogenesis is completely subject to study; all elements are presumed to be observable, directly or indirectly. Creationism, however, falls short. Why? It is encumbered with yet another unconfirmed notion - the God hypothesis. Therefore, creationism fills the gaps in our knowledge with another, even larger gap that remains forever unfillable. Without resorting to special pleadings, that is. Special pleadings found in a religious book. But we'll come back to that.
To demonstrate the state of affairs as they stand right now, please consider the following oversimplification:
| Item | Natural Abiogenesis | Creationism |
|---|---|---|
| Organic material available | Confirmed | Confirmed |
| Favorable conditionspresent | Confirmed | Confirmed |
| Life-forms exist | Confirmed | Confirmed |
| Life forms from non-livingorganic material | Assumed | Assumed |
| Non-living organic materialforms spontaneously | Evidenced | Denied |
| Life-giving "spark" | Assumed natural | Assumed supernatural |
| Evolution | Evidenced | Denied |
As you can see, the issue is hardly a clear-cut case of logical inference. You'll note that for the items in contention, natural abiogenesis does not assert that they have been confirmed, yet creationism affirmatively denies them. Also, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that some theists accept all of the above items, and take exception only to the idea that the "spark" of life was the result of a natural process.
Creationism, as noted above, is encumbered by the God hypothesis. This secondary hypothesis is not complimentary, but it is essential. The God hypothesis is not complimentary because it seeks the same confirmation from creationism that it seeks to provide. Unfortunately, none is forthcoming, so both approach failure as hypotheses. As a matter of evidence, there is none for the God hypothesis that isn't provided by some religious book, and there is none for creationism that isn't provided by the God hypothesis. In that sense, both are derived from some creation story in some book written by an ancient people.
To put it another way, God is as essential to creationism as creationism is to God, yet both are impossible to confirm or falsify and have no reliable evidence in their favor. In a way, this is an example of the real-life effects of question begging; each conclusion assumes the premises of the other.
You would say the God hypothesis and creationism are falsifiable. I disagree. Why? Because even should we witness the forming of a complete, living, self-replicating cell in the lab, the creationist can still claim that it was God that did the combining, or that without God the necessary elements wouldn't even have been available, or that God allowed that to happen. The unseen force that God is supposed to supply to life is forever beyond the microscope. If it weren't, God would cease to be considered a supernatural entity.
So you see, even in the absence of a rival hypothesis creationism fails as a theory because it relies almost entirely on special pleadings and evidentiary gaps. There is no positive evidence for creationism. There is no positive evidence for a creator. Creationists - including you - are fully aware of this, which is why you attack rival hypotheses as incomplete, hoping that if you are vociferous enough people will let you fill those intolerable gaps with your "theory."
Even in the weak state it's currently in, natural abiogenesis is superior to creationism in almost every way. Should some wise person come along and present evidence for a creator that isn't based on conjecture or some religious book, I'll gladly reconsider the arguments. Until then, I'll continue to remain a technical agnostic where the origins of life are concerned, pending further study.
Incidentally, you have noticed that over the years the gaps into which God has fit have grown smaller and smaller, and the number of them reduced, haven't you? What makes you think this gap won't also become a victim, making God a homeless entity?
Also, I didn't address the free will problem here so you may want to refer back to #16950 to read about that.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
528. Comment #17057 by J.C. Samuelson on January 10, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Sorry about that formatting problem. I've tried to correct it but I don't think the site likes the HTML tags for tables. Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
529. Comment #17101 by hanmaixiu on January 10, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Comment #9584 by BenC on November 25, 2006 at 7:37 am
If I were to present a Powershot A85 digital camera, you'd immediately know that it was designed by Canon!
I can never understand this analogy to intelligent design.
Personally I think God did a really shit job on my eyes, which need prescription lenses and are always getting dust and stuff inside. He's an inferior craftsman compared to the engineers at Nikon, that's for sure. Lucky I wasn't born 500 years ago. My eyes are just right for getting eaten by a dinosaur.
If I bought a Nikon D80 that captured what my eyes can see in their natural state, I'd be shoving it up the posterior of the salesman. Which reminds me, hey God!, can I get 10x zoom eyes in heaven?
Other Comments by hanmaixiu
530. Comment #17155 by down_under on January 11, 2007 at 10:03 am
J.Cre: when you said to theo
"we'll just agree to disagree."
I find myself saying this more and more too theists, when they get stuck they simply no longer want to debate, they may aswell just shout at the top of their lungs
"My ears are deaf to all but the teachings of the bible!"
its quite annoying and makes me wonder how they can belive when if they find something that defies their belief rather than study it they dimiss it, pretend it isnt there, then carry on in their blind faith.
Plus i wouldnt rely on theo replying to you anytime soon, i think your last post caught him out, whenever he gets caught out he simply ignores the statement, if you read through my posts for him you'll see what i mean!
also loved the chart!
Other Comments by down_under
531. Comment #17160 by Theo on January 11, 2007 at 10:54 am
D_U,I would assume the biblical "giants" were literall Giants much like the unicorn (ok disputed) and the Dragon in revalations
however, if we assume that by giants they mean "tall people" then why does the bible say "there were giants then" Genesis 6: 1-4
assuming there are none anymore? we know there are so explain
First of all I said that the nephilim of large stature who were possibly larger than normal "tall people". Therefore if an entire race of man who fitted that description existed in those days, they certainly do not exist anymore
also, if we assume you can explain that, then do you belive that "tall people" (say 7ft or over) were created by demons cross-breeding with humans????
See comment 572
The fact that you have continously refused to answer this question makes me think you know how ridiculous it (and therefore the bible) is!!
PLEASE THEO ANSWER YES OR NO!!!!
I answered it in comment 572!
OK then smart arse! (avoiding answers with sarcastic comments will get you nowhere with me) The snake WAS talking of its own accord, it was not God speaking through the snake
So do you belive animals could talk??
No animal can speak today. In the garden of Eden, it is believed that Satan took the form of a serpent to deceive Adam and Eve. We understand this in Gods prophecy concerning the woman.
So answer me!! WHERE DOES IT SAY THE SNAKE WAS SENT TO TEST FAITH???
That Satan tested man can be deduced from the passage. It does not say in the exact words, "Satan tested man"
For example, someone once deduced that the snake spoke to Eve without Gods knowledge. Nowhere does it say in the exact words, "God did not know" but that private deduction was made.
"Yeah d_u, the thousands and thousands of fossils to represent the billions upon billions of lifeforms that ever existed makes them preeeetty rare."
Theo you're a moron!! your logic is soooo 1 dimensional!!! although as a theist it is expected!
Well the funny thing is that that information on the rarity of fossils was given to me by evolutionists (as I stated before this is the explanation given by scientists to account for the rarity of transitional forms). They also described the fossil record as poor. But I guess that its only when this information is presented by a theist its "moronic"
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils#Rarity_of_fossils
It must be pointed out that I do agree with evolutionist on one point: that the rarity of fossils has only a small impact on their value. I believe that even though we have a poor fossil record, valuable information can be gleaned from it.
nothing in science is surefire, that is what is so brilliant about it becuase it means things are always beig questioned and tested (unlike religion and faith), the fossil records are normally 1 - 10 million years off......but thats actually pretty damn accurate considering and therefore is a very good way of looking at it.
That is why I respect science for what it is, a growing body of knowledge whose scope is limited only to repeatable and empirically observable phenomena. The understanding of these limitations should evaporate any dogmatism surrounding science, but however, that is not the case. For argument sake let us assume that God is real. If He actually existed, could He be measured by science? Should He bend to the demand of scientists to replay his creation act? Would it be reasonable to assume that if His intelligence far exceeds ours that we may disagree with Him on many points? That if the facts He presents need to be accurately criticized by science that science would have to be a complete body of knowledge? As a result of these limitations, science must stay within its scope and assume that there is no God, thus all the evidence pointing towards him must now be interpreted as having naturalistic causes (no matter how improbable they really are) and those that cannot be explained naturally (supernatural events) are dismissed outright. In other words science is like a net with 3 ft. by 3 ft holes. It is used to scour the ocean and then it is pulled on to the ship, when its contents are examined, the conclusion is that creatures in the ocean smaller than 3 ft do not exist! Logic would therefore imply that truths are independent of scientific discovery.
I also notice that you beg for explanations to supernatural events, which is paradoxical. If they can be explained then they would cease to be supernatural . . .but I'll answer (?) just for the fun of it.
and YES theo you moron it is easier to assume that 2 microscopic atoms came from nothing than a huge intelligent thinking complex human looking (in our image remember theo) being!!! as i previously stated intelligence is immensly complex, and god would be more complex than the universe he created so YES THEO YES!!! not very complex atoms from nothing is a millions times easier to accept!!!!!
Some scientists would agree with you and some would not. I just hold the same opinion with those that don't, that something must have always existed even if it is not a Creator. But again I guess since I am a theist, that idea that I hold with the other scientists is "moronic"
hah hah hah hah theo!!! you just admited your own belief is improbable!!! hah hah hah!! brilliant!!! more than i coudl've hoped for!
so even knowing how improbable your god is dont you feel silly worshipping him?
and may i also add then yes, a creator is improbable (highly infact) but sciences answers are HIGHLY PROBABLE! so ponder on that for a while
Actually, I was correcting you on the point that prominent atheists such as R.D. do not state that Gods existence is impossible but improbable.
Actually, current data shows that a creator is more probable than spontaneous generation. If you have not been doing so already, you should follow the discussion between J.C. Samuelson and me.
"If th great flood kiled the dinosaurs (haha) THEN WHAT KILLED THE FLYING AND SWIMMING DINOSAURS?!?! this one is always brushed over by theists. "That 2 of EVERY ANIMAL!! (now trust me thats ALOT!! there are several species of Wallaby alone!) all fit on 1 boat then somehow managed to redistribute themselves to their respective habitats!!!
Koalas going back to Australia, Polar bears to the arctic, etc etc" (me)
See comment 574" (response)
comment 574 answered nothing
For the last time I said that if Genesis is silent on the topic then the answer to these questions cannot be known for sure, there are theories yes, but theories don't cut it as truths. IF however, God exists, then we would understand how it happened.
P.S: this is probably the third time I am answering this question . . . please, do not make it a fourth.
"how languages have evolved (Spanish and French from latin, English and German from Germanic etc etc) is ignored? (me)
I asked for proof of this remember?" (response)
it is a well known fact!
infact if you speak more than 1 language you will see the similarities! in portugese and spanish, swedish and german etc etc
if you compare spanish to latin you will again see the similaarites, you can actually see tha languages evolve!
but just for your mornic theist mind, here is some evidence
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/la1.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_linguistics
You said, "it is a well known fact! . . . but just for your mornic theist mind, here is some evidence"
I thought the use of secondary sources by historians was a well known fact too. How dare you refer to people ignorant of well known facts as morons. ;)
Anyway I followed your link and found that there are at least four different theories about the evolution of language, none of which are proven beyond the other. This is somewhat different from one actual explanation that proves it as fact.
as for
"and the fact that if God brought the animals to the ark by supernatural intervention He could redistribute them by it too"
doesnt that simply defeat the object of noahs ark in the first place? god could just save all the animals by "devine intervention" or better yet, simply re-create them all afer the flood, why did he need to save any at all?
im sorry but the "god can do anything" argument explains nothing and is just superstition, it is ridiculous
Sorry, I believe that God can do things His way. We can ask why did God not create the world in 2 days instead of 6. I don't know why He did it that way but He did and He certainly had the right to do it any way He wanted. As I said before if indeed God has infinite wisdom it would be strange if we agreed with Him on everything.
you also failed to comment on how all those animals (alot remember, especially if you belive that the dinosaurs were on the ark, and id love to imagine 2 brachiosauruses on there....among all the other sauropods, theropods, hadrosaurs etc etc) managed to fit on the ark!
It is possible that the animals entering the ark were not full grown. If that is so, given the size of the ark, the babies of these animals could have fitted. But again, IF God exist then all things are possible.
Other Comments by Theo
532. Comment #17162 by Theo on January 11, 2007 at 10:57 am
D_U, comment 666 (gasp!) :)If God put the snake there to test adam and eves faith....then why was the snake punished?
it was only doing gods will, and god (seeing all past present and future as he does) would know what the snake was going to do anyway?
ok, lets break this down: if the snake was doing Gods will why was it punished?
Answer: Satan, taking the form as a serpent was prophesied to be defeated for tempting man and woman.
But was he not doing the will of God? This illustration would help answer this question:
A man owns a vineyard, after harvesting the grapes he hires some of the villagers to help crush the grapes with their feet (a common tradition in Greece). One could understand his indignation at the unruly group that constantly runs through his vineyard causing damage to torment him. After numerous warnings, they still repeat their actions. One day the owner, instead of hiring villagers, he placed all the grapes in the normal path of the unruly group. When they ran through the vineyard they crushed the grapes thus playing right into owners plan.
We see that the owner used that groups rebellion against him for his own plan. Thus even though the group fulfilled a higher purpose, they were still guilty. Satan in his effort to rebel against God would always play right into His plan, and he would still be guilty!
and on the snakes punishment....slither on your belly for all time? how did it get around before? hop on its tail perhaps?
and eat dust? i know of no snakes that eat dust
and punishing all snakes for the mistake of one! bit unjust!
that would be like imprisoning all the next generations of a murderer!
and all the modern snakes cant even talk!! ;-)
If the curse on the serpent was to start crawling on its belly, it means that this was not the initial mode of locomotion. We do not know what the initial method of locomotion was because the scripture does not mention it. Another point to note is that when the serpent spoke to Eve she was not a bit surprised. This creature apparently also had the gift of speech.
The punishment of the entity that deceived mankind is twofold. One for Satan himself and the other, for the creature he embodied, but why the creature? This punishment was more for man than for the serpent (we don't see snakes suffering or in pain as a result of the "punishment"). To see a creature gifted with speech to be transformed to what we know as a snake, would have engrained within their minds how serious the creator viewed disobedience.
Comment 667
God scattered everyone because he thought we would reach heaven? is heaven in the sky?
whywerent the americans scattered when they invented the plane and english changed?
Why werent the russians scattered when they put a man in space and russian changed?
Why did god think a tower would reach him? he's not very bright is he!
A careful reading of the text would bring to light the fact that God wanted people to scatter over the earth. The people however sought to build the tower and make a city otherwise they would be scattered over the earth. This was against Gods commands, thus he scattered them by confusing their language as the conclusion states:
Gen 11:9
Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth.
NASU
Not because He thought they would build a tower to reach Him!
And apparantly there were already many languages before the tower of babel anyway, did god simply forget? not very all knowing is he (note he had to come down to see the tower.....he didnt already know it was going to happen or that it was there....odd if he sees past future and present)
If the passage in question is carefully read, it is seen that the narrative before the confusion at Babel describes the genealogies of the descendants of Noah and their future states, i.e. how they will be scattered according to their tongues etc. after that in chapter 11, the chronology now reverts back to the present describing how and why the scattering took place.
ofcourse im obsessed with the word unicorn!! it says "unicorn" in the friggin bible!!!! regardless of what translation there is a bible translation out there with the word "unicorn" in!!!! a fictional mythical beast! in the bible!!! i think its hillarious!!! and its not alone, dragons, giants and talking snakes made it in there too!!!
Well theists have already passed that stage because we understand what the word really is: a wild ox. If you chose to believe that it's a horse with a horn, that's your prerogative, others have moved on.
I am really surprised that you mentioned dragon in revelation, no beast in revelation is real, they are all visions.
Also we must understand that words used to describe animals in the bible originated before scientific classification. For example the bible describes whales as fishes, but whales are mammals not fishes. The people of that day understood that fishes simply meant water dwelling animals . . . not that the bible was wrong.
Yes but were they ALL atthe same time covering the entire surface?
you have shot yourself in the foot with this one because even if they were all atthe same time then that would mean that more people survived than those on the ark....with no records as to how......therefore making that story either a lie or these people would have survived without your all kowing all seeing god realising."
I am not to sure as to what you are saying but I will answer what I believe your concerns are. The descendants after Noah scattered over the earth all carrying what they remembered from the flood that would explain the commonality of the flood stories all over the earth.
Other Comments by Theo
533. Comment #17163 by gimlibengloin on January 11, 2007 at 11:07 am
Theo (686)E 1-5 The nachash. Tempts the woman to take of the tree of knowledge
F 6 The tree of knowledge. Eating from it
G (f) 7- Effect on both: the man and the woman
(g) –7 Human provision: man made clothes
H 8-12 God's enquiry of Adam
I 13 God's enquiry of the woman
K 14,15 God's sentence on the nachash
I 16 God's sentence on the woman
H 17-19 God's sentence on Adam
G (f) 20 Effect on both: the man and the woman
(g) 21 Divine provision: God made clothes
F 22-24- The tree of life. Expulsion from it
E –24 The cherubim. Prevents the man from taking of the tree of life
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
534. Comment #17164 by Theo on January 11, 2007 at 11:07 am
J.C.Samuelson,As you can see,the replies to d_u's comments took up a lot of valuable time (i hope i didn't waste my time)so I'll give you a reply as soon as I could.
Other Comments by Theo
535. Comment #17165 by gimlibengloin on January 11, 2007 at 11:11 am
Theo (686)I'd like to suggest that the above structure of Gen 3 demonstrates the correspondence between the serpent and the cherubim and suggests that the serpent or the nachash was in fact simply satan. In other words the nachash wasn't satan as a snake but snake is a figure of speech or a homonym. The word nachash is actually used of bronze because it glitters or shines. This is why it is used of satan for as Paul says satan can disguise himself as an angel of light.
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
536. Comment #17166 by gimlibengloin on January 11, 2007 at 11:13 am
TheoPaul actually makes that comment in relat
501. Comment #16724 by down_under on January 8, 2007 at 10:33 am
Also shaun thanks for responding to the beard question!! iv been wating for a response to that for ages!! haha and it did give me a chuckle, still confuses me though, that god doesnt like a clean shaven face?And Mark! im impressed you have a beard! i was secretly hoping to catch you out there! ;-) he he
Other Comments by down_under