201. Comment #12428 by Mark Taunton on December 12, 2006 at 1:29 am

Before I promptly get jumped on by the heavy mob, on a most basic and stupid erorr on my part: Barry Marshall found ulcers were caused by a bacteria, not a virus (munch, munch, this humble pie is stale). Brave man did it by swallowing the stuff himself, too...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

202. Comment #12437 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 2:36 am

Hi Shaun,
I'm busy today, so will have to be brief I'm affraid. Micah 4 talks of babylon, but I dont see the relevance to Micah 5. Micah 5, if you use one of the translations that state village other than clan for bethelehem, it is very clear that this person in 5: will do battle with the assyrians (5:5-6). This person (Perhaps hezekiah) is restricted to the time of an assyrian threat.

Just to clarify, I don't almost believe Daniels prophecy, and have pointed out faults with it. Daniel is also trying to extend jeremiahs 70 year prophecy of exile in babylon here. The problem here is that the actual exile only lasted 49 years. I think that the book of daniel is actually bad history pretending to be prophecy. I would also like to clarify that I am not going out my way to disprove these prophecies. I initially got interested in them in an attempt to save my faith. They happen to fail. I am not actively trying to make them fail, they just do. If you want to give your reasons as to why you think I am wrong, then please do. Otherwise, I suggest that we respectfully agree to disagree.
Cheers

Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

203. Comment #12450 by shauntheboy on December 12, 2006 at 3:11 am

Billy

I was just reading through the posts from yesterday and today and see that my response to your Micah 4, etc objections seems a bit curt! Sorry about that! It wasn't intended to be in any way disrespectful of your opinion.

I'll hopefully find time to give a more reasoned response forthwith. Unless Mark would like to comment as he's doing a sterling job of answering the prohecy questions (only in my opinion of course!)

Other Comments by shauntheboy

204. Comment #12451 by Peppers on December 12, 2006 at 3:20 am

"...the theory of evolution. Yet, that theory is completely false, and there is no scientist of any standing, who would dare claim that it has been proved indisputably true."

Actually as a theory even evolution is open to being superseded by a better proposition so its true to say scientists will not claim it to be "proved indisputably true".

Nonetheless that doesn't in any way validate the creationist arguments against evolution which are without exception based on fundamentally flawed (appropriate for religious fundamentalists dont you think?) understanding of the consequence of natural selection and their misconception of the role of chance in resultant evolution.

Which brings me to my real point which is that discussions such as these with groups who need to be blinded by faith are ultimately fruitless exercises. They cant or dont want to understand evolution or any other of a myriad accepted scientific theories. The real thrust of all the energy devoted to such discussions should be to allow young people to make up their own minds by presenting all the options in an even handed way.

Don't hide all this good thinking in a forum like this that is already preaching to the converted and angering the lost causes, get it out in the public domain.

Sorry thats my rant over. Thanks for letting me vent my spleen.

Other Comments by Peppers

205. Comment #12455 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 3:33 am

No offence was taken Shaun

Other Comments by BillySands

206. Comment #12457 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2006 at 3:37 am

353. Comment #12425 by Mark Taunton on December 12, 2006 at 1:01 am

Hi, Brian. I don't fear being in a minority. Interesting NewSci this past week - the man who discovered that stomach ulcers are primarily caused by a virus, not by stress or the like, was a maverick going totally against the grain because he wasn't part of the consensus to start with. He wasn't alone :-)

Yes, he was a maverick then and most new discoveries start out in exactly the way you describe. However, he's not a maverick now, because he has convinced a substantial chunk of his peers with evidence.

Your "evidence" such as it is, is accepted by almost no one, not even in fields sympathetic to your basic religious views. Until such a swing were to occur, we have to consider your opinion on these subjects suspect and subjective.

In short, every wild haired crackpot with a theory is not an Einstein. An fact, almost none of them are:-)

As regards your comments on the Quran and Book of Mormon; Millions of people in those faiths will argue as vociferously for their holy books, as you do for yours. They see your holy book as flawed and suspect, for to them entirely rational reasons, just as you dismiss theirs.

The only sensible position is to dismiss all of them, and to stand outside any of the bubbles of delusion occupied by people of faith. There are many good reasons to dismiss them, but by far the best is that any all powerful and loving god, would surely have at the very least got the communication of the message right!! All these competing holy books, and the many divisions of interpretation even within the various faiths is surely overwhelming evidence that it's all nonsense?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

207. Comment #12498 by JonG on December 12, 2006 at 7:53 am

Hello all... i'm back from a long weekend away from the computer but the fires are still burning I see.

Firstly, I must apologise to Billy - (re my 302 comments) my intention wasn't to dismiss or offend you with my Eric Idol quote - i hope you can see the funny side ;)

You made the point, through the verse of Mr Idle, that God made the nasty things as well as the nice -- well, the Bible tells us that also. I directed you to the first 6 chapters of Genesis, and again, I must apologise for the assumption that you had not/did not intend on reading them - you obviously do know them, although you obviously dismiss them.

My point then, again through the verse of Eric Idle, was that of Genesis... 'one foot in the grave...' ie: we are all going to die.
The mercy of God has nothing to do with us all living a nice life now!
God's mercy is displayed in that he has provided a 'bridge' between himself (He who is unapproachable) and mankind in the example, life, death, resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Him is our Salvation.

Job states that sometimes the evil of this world seem to prosper. It doesn't seem fair does it. Yet, in God's eyes none of us are perfect, but neither are we expected to be - we are only required to do our best. Now, that's different for everyone but it's something that everyone can do.

So, in summary, take from this that I don't wish you, or believe you will *ever* end up, in 'Hell'. It's not a concept that I subscribe to because there is no evidence for it in the Bible. But, we all (even us Christadelphians) have (at least) one foot in the grave! But we need to look past that and look forward to a future of promise.

Hebrews 11 shows us a wealthy man (Abraham) who enjoyed a long life, but looked for something more in the promises that God gave to him.

I too (endeavour) to look for the same promised land that *will* exist on *this* earth.

Hebrews 11
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

I know, from an atheists point of view I'm taking a lot for granted, (God exists, etc...) but I just wanted you to know why it is that i'm trying to defend my beliefs.

See you in a few days - too many late, late nights - i'm going to start rationing myself... :)

Other Comments by JonG

208. Comment #12501 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 12, 2006 at 8:45 am

>>The mercy of God has nothing to do with us all living a nice life now!
God's mercy is displayed in that he has provided a 'bridge' between himself (He who is unapproachable) and mankind in the example, life, death, resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Him is our Salvation.<<

How convenient for God. If God had any MERCY at all, he would have made us PERFECT and incapable of suffering, death and disease in the first place. The problems of the Earth stops at GOD'S responsibility, not mans. You can't punish man for being EXACTLY how he was designed by your designer God. He messed it up and he should have put it right TO BEGIN WITH. To allow this 'hideous failed caricature' known as Man, to continue, proves God does not exist at all.

>>Job states that sometimes the evil of this world seem to prosper. It doesn't seem fair does it. Yet, in God's eyes none of us are perfect, but neither are we expected to be - we are only required to do our best. Now, that's different for everyone but it's something that everyone can do.<<

Again, for evil to prosper, then the buck stops at God's feet. He condemns murderers - for being EXACTLY how he created them. He condemns homosexuals, for being EXACTLY as he created them. When will your God grow up and accept some blame? For evil to EXIST AT ALL, then God MUST HAVE CREATED IT, be it the 'Devil' or God himself. This is circular reasoning AND VERY CONVENIENT FOR GOD, that a lesser being, messed up by a better being, can be punished by the better being for behaving exactly as a lesser being should!!!

A 'LOVING' God, creating 'HATE' is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Only an EVIL God could create evil. It is a ridiculous argument, much like stating that the Bible is true BECAUSE the Bible says so!

I suggest you check your reasoning, because, it is faulty. You believe in a loving God, right? What kind of LOVING being would consider the concept of the AIDS Virus? The disease Progeria? Cancer? Leprosy? Elephantitis? There are 1,000's of VILE ways of dying - all lovingly crafted by your Loving God. What a tribute to superior beings he is.

Worship that? I'd rather not thank you. I think your God (who I doubt exists), must be QUITE an evil, miserable old bugger, incapable of understanding mankinds problems. Jesus didn't make things any better for any of us, so what was the point? If it was to understand suffering, then why has God chosen to ignore the last 2,000 years?

These are tired old arguments. And Atheists like us have heard them all before and grow impatient at your God's lack of empathy and lack of desire to show himself and sort this planet out.

He doesn't because he is not there. You are DELUDED and I beg you to read The God Delusion. It was written specifically for you. Somebody who has intelligence, but is clinging on to the hope of a God.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

209. Comment #12504 by shauntheboy on December 12, 2006 at 9:14 am

Comment by on December 12, 2006 at 9:00 am
Hi Joad,

You ask:
351. Comment #12415 by Joadist on December 11, 2006 at 8:37 pm
I may have asked before, but I didn't get a clarification. You continually use the phrase 'Free Will'.

1: Man without Free Will could choose to eat the apple or the pig without restrictions.
2: Man with Free Will could no longer eat the pig without penatly.

Why is will with restrictions more FREE than will without restrictions?


*Shaun*: Man without free will could *choose* to do nothing! So firstly, without free will you have no *choices* to make.

Joad:It seems to me that the entire notion of Free Will is a negative. It did not provide any choices that we did not already have. But it did create penalties which did not previously exist.

*Shaun*: Joad you say: "(free will)...didn't provide any choices that we did not already have". Think about what you've just said! Without free will you have *no choice*.

Joad:Wouldn't we be much better off without Free Will?
We could still do everything we currently do, but without the risk of offending God.

*Shaun*: Nope. Because you wouldn't be able to do all the things you do without *freedom to choose*. Without freedom to choose you are just a drone in the hive, if you think that would be better than what we have now then you are entitled to that opinion.

Joad: It seems to me that the sole purpose of Free Will was to create a crime where none existed.

*Shaun*: Either you accept the authority (and existence)of the law maker, or you reject it. You are free to choose, but ignorance is not a defence. You may feel that it would be a good thing to go out and rob a few banks and distribute the proceeds to the needy in society, think of all the good you could do! Unfortunately for the poor and needy there are laws made by those in authority that say "it is wrong under any circumstances to rob a bank". You can choose to accept or reject the authority of the law makers and their laws, but if you go out robbing banks then you will eventually have to face the consequences of that choice. It is no different with God, we either accept his authority and existence or we reject it. If we reject it we are free for the time being to live our lives as we please and then to die. In this circumstance death is final, or everlasting, to use Biblical language. But we have a choice and the views that represent those choices are evident in this thread.

Joad: God did not give is Free Will. He gave us something else which we did not previously possess...the ability to SIN.

Gee thanks.

*Shaun*: It almost sounds like you are angry with God? but I realise that you don't believe in him so that can't be the case. You have actually hit the nail right on the head, to have a world with freedom to choose, a world with love, God had to create us with the ability to sin. The world around us is the way it is because of the choices that human beings make (not just Adam & Eve – all human beings sin).For this reason and this reason alone our world is the way it is, it is the reason we have disease, suffering and death. It's also a world where people experience happiness and joy and goodness and love.

They say that "love makes the world go round" (although I haven't seen any empirical data published to support that theory), and I tend to agree with that sentiment. Life without love is not life at all. A world without freedom to choose is a world without love. A world with freedom to choose is a world with suffering - just for the time-being though!

Other Comments by shauntheboy

210. Comment #12506 by JonG on December 12, 2006 at 9:17 am

Oh dear, i'm still here and about to land myself in trouble (at home...)...

Anyway, briefly... your aguments against what i've said are based on the assumption that suffering should be avoided at all costs. Well i'm afraid that the message of the Bible (and not a popular one, granted) is that suffering is necessary... but...

1 Cor 15:19
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

This passage and the context of the passage is that what Christ has to offer is better than what we enjoy (or not) now...

But you are right, they are old arguments - arguably the oldest there are..!

Other Comments by JonG

211. Comment #12507 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 12, 2006 at 9:27 am

Hi Shauntheboy. Sorry. But your thinking is misguided.

Is God All-loving?

Any evil or Sin in the World is GOD'S FAULT and RESPONSIBILITY.

So God CAN'T be all-loving as you would have us believe. Further, an ALL-LOVING GOD, COULDN'T conceive of concepts such as death, disease and suffering. It would be illogical to him.

Do we have free-will?

To have TRUE Free-will, we should be able to do WHAT we like WITHOUT PUNISHMENT.

We are left with the inescapable conclusion that, to have free-will, we should be allowed to do what we like. But, according to the Bible, we aren't allowed to do certain things. Therefore, we don't have free-will.

Is God all-knowing? Then he KNEW IN ADVANCE who would commit Sinful acts. SO WHY PUNISH THEM for being EXACTLY AS HE CREATED?

Then God CAN'T be all-knowing.

For an immortal, all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God, to create a mortal, limited-knowing, limited-loving, limited-powerful Human and then go an punish that Human for being EXACTLY as GOD designed him, is illogical and impossible.

It is unfair and not the act of a supreme being. To blame the lesser being, for behaving EXACTLY as the lesser being was DESIGNED by the superior being is illogical and impossible.

Therefore, he can't exist. God is an illogical concept.

A logical God, would have everything right at THE START. To allow the imperfections to continue through their dismal existence is ILLOGICAL and IMPOSSIBLE.

I'd check your premises. Your thinking is flawed. You should read The God Delusion - the Professor wrote it specifically for you. Intelligent, thoughtful people, clinging on to the hope of a God.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

212. Comment #12510 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 9:39 am

Hi JonG,
Another assumption you make is that Abraham actually existed. Archaeolgy makes that seem unlikely, or at least the stories about him are unlikely, since there are mention of cities and states that just did not exist at the time Abraham was supposed to live. I also forgot to mention about the first 6 chapters of genesis that god decides man will not live more than 120 years (6:3) This is clearly false. The oldest person I know of was 122, there may even have been older. An I also disagree with both contradictory creation accounts and the flood.

I should also pint out that the bible says that not everyone will be allowed to believe (rom9:18) there are also verses saying that salvation is pre-ordained. How do you reconcile that with your view?
The bible does not say suffering is necessary, and this goes againt the ideal plan for creation. Do you expect suffering in heaven? if not, why not?
Cheers

Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

213. Comment #12511 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2006 at 9:43 am

... Without freedom to choose you are just a drone in the hive, if you think that would be better than what we have now then you are entitled to that opinion.

Rubbish. If god doesn't want me to kill people, then create me in such a way that I don't. Strengthen my conscenience to such a degree that I am simply incapable of harming another human. Create a world where population and resources are in perfect balance.

I still have free will to paint, go for a walk, watch TV, read a book, go for a swim, move to another country and discover a foreign culture, listen to music, compose music or any of a million things in a utopian world of near infinite resources where anyone can do anything they like as long as it does not hurt another. I'm a mere human, but it took me 5 minutes to conceive of this arrangement.

The whole free will crock is a smokescreen to get your fictious god off the hook of a darwinian world geared towards survival of the fittest.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

214. Comment #12513 by gsrns on December 12, 2006 at 10:27 am

Shaunyboy,

Why do you think faith should be admired?

What should be admired is reason and evidence.

Just because there are certain questions in the universe that cannot be explained yet, does not mean that we should assign irrational and superstitious ideals about a 'supreme being' or 'intelligent designer' in order to keep us comforted in our ignorance.


All it would take, as evolutionists have noted, is one fossil in the wrong place in the the sequence and the whole theory would be blown out of the water. Science when proved wrong, unlike religion, does not stick to its doctrine like a man on a sinking ship, but abandons it and starts again.

Richard, 'I know nothing of evolution and I don't really care' is pretty much the most laughably embarrassing comment I have ever heard anyone utter. If you don't know what the options are how can you be sure you have the right one?

Only a lighter note, can I just say how fantastic it is to be on a blog with intelligent, evolved humans

Other Comments by gsrns

215. Comment #12514 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 10:32 am

All this talk reminds me of the nagging question, "Is there Free Will in Heaven?"

We are told that without Free Will, we're just robots that will do whatever God wants, and that will never do since we wouldn't be independent from him with our own minds.

So because we have free will, there is evil and sin in the world because we have the option of disobedience.

But we are also told that believers will be with God after death, in a place where there is no sin or disobedience. Will we have free will there? If so, why? If not, why not? Are we robots in heaven without any independence from God?

If heaven is a place where we retain our independence but have no desire to sin because of the presence of God, then why didn't he just bypass all this earth stuff and simply create us all in heaven in the first place?

We are also told that war once broke out in heaven (then why would I want to go?) and one third of the angels were cast out as punishment for rebellion. Angels must therefore have free will, or Satan could never have chosen to disobey God.

So, according to this very convoluted and somewhat ridiculous brand of theology, we are told that God created two specific classes of beings:

First, he creates angels, who must have some sort of free will or else Satan and his followers could never have rebelled. But angels who have rebelled apparently never change their minds and decide they've made a mistake by doing so. Conversely, the angels who remained faithful to God (and who also must have free will) can apparently exist quite happily for untold centuries without sinning. Not even once. Because these angels exist in the presence of God and heaven is a perfect place with no disobedience, right?

Then (apparently as a joke), God creates human beings, who in their constiutution and willpower are so flawed and weak that left to their own devices would commit sin every five seconds, and are accordingly punished for it.

Would it have been too much to ask for God to create people with free will, but also with a willpower and constitution a little more on the angelic side? Is it too much to suggest that people can retain their free will without being made so poorly that they want to sin almost immediately and constantly?

Most of the angels don't sin at all, and don't disobey God even once for enormously long lengths of time, we are told. So why aren't people made like that?

My last question is: Am I the only person who immediately notices that all this stuff sounds horribly imaginary and contrived?

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

216. Comment #12516 by Thrall on December 12, 2006 at 10:48 am

Well, I think that a unicorns horn spirals counterclockwise if they are male, and clockwise if they are female. However, if the male unicorn is evil, it's horn will spiral clockwise, and turn counterclockwise half-way up. If you touch an evil unicorn you will turn into a unicorn yourself. Unicorns want me to be miserable like them, so evil unicorns are always trying to get me to touch them (even though they are invisible and pink). So, because I know about what the horn looks like on evil unicorns, the evil ones won't come near me, and I am saved!

(Can we please get off the subject of the intracacies of God said this, and then said this it seems a bit futile. I've never heard god say anything, there's no proof of god ever speaking, so leave it be. The bible was written by humans, and until there is proof otherwise, i'll continue to argue about unicorns_)

Other Comments by Thrall

217. Comment #12517 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 10:49 am

Kingasaurs,
I totally agree with you. It is one ofthose things that you only believe if you already believe it. I have a big problem with Rom 8:29 "For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

Predestiny and you are going to become a clone of jesus. Where is the free will? How are believers going to be perfect in heaven? And why was mankind cursesed for the actions of 2 people, but all the angels were not. To explain this, you have to contrive answers (not backed up by any substance). I have also said elsewhere that the whole theology of the fall is wrong and immoral on the part og the biblical god

Other Comments by BillySands

218. Comment #12518 by gsrns on December 12, 2006 at 10:55 am

One more thing Shaun (I'm afraid I'm assuming that is you name as i haven't trawled through all your comments, although they do look interesting.)

At one point you mention what your children would think if you brought them up in a certain manner, but you must be aware that if you allow them to follow the example of the God of the Old Testament, they will become: (and forgive me the obvious lift from a man far more erudite than I): jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomashochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

As Kingasauras has pointed out, how can you worship this idol? even if it didn't defy all logic to put your store in stories so ridiculous and irrational. (Noah, Lot, Jesus, Moses, Lazarus) The creature you believe invented the world provides a worse role model for your children than Hitler.

If you reject creationism (as well you should)and plump for Intelligent Design are you not concerned that you are landing in a half way zone? a kind of pseudo-science where you haven't entirely embraced enlightenement, but you don't have the courage to entirely reject the God that provides you with so much comfort in the bleak face of the fact that we only get one shot at this life.

If so, there is only question:

Who designed your 'Designer'?

Other Comments by gsrns

219. Comment #12520 by shauntheboy on December 12, 2006 at 11:01 am

It seems the view of what we (Christadelphians) think is our hope is being a little misrepresented here! None of us has said that we think we are going to heaven when we die as far as I'm aware? We are all waiting for the return of Christ and kingdom of God on Earth!

You all make your points very well and I think we have already gone over most of the objections raised by the last few contributors in previous threads.

So back to the problems with NDT then! ;-)

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

220. Comment #12521 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 11:06 am

I'm not just arguing with Christadelphians. I'm arguing with the theology put forth that most Christians adhere to.

If you want to play the "they're all wrong about that" card, you're free to do so. You wouldn't be the first minority sect to flog that dead horse into powder.

It doesn't change the point with regards to the different levels of "willpower" between humans and angels.

Subsitute "the new Earth when Jesus comes back" for "heaven" in my previous post and the point still stands. Will the inhabitants of the "new Earth" retain their free will or not?

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

221. Comment #12524 by jefferson on December 12, 2006 at 11:19 am

In response to your belief that Christ will return someday:
Shaun, maybe you'll finally learn the truth when your God doesn't come. God is the product of our imagination.
Imagine something similar: I worship money as a God, and I'm waiting for a million dollars to manifest out of nowhere and drop on my lap someday because I read in a book that it will happen. It is obvious that it won't happen. Same with your fictional God.

Other Comments by jefferson

222. Comment #12531 by shauntheboy on December 12, 2006 at 12:21 pm

Kingasaurus,

The traditional "Christian" view of Heaven and my minority view of a new Earth aren't really comparable. The harp plucking and or disembodied bliss that is associated with heaven isn't really found in the Bible, and seems to be a pretty vague concept. The prophecies concerning the process of the renewing of the Earth are structured, consistent, involve real human beings as we know them (not disembodied spirits) and so on. The project plans are there for you to see with quite a few artist's impressions too if you are interested. I know you're probably not interested, but if you adopt the heaven-going doctrine then it contradicts and confuses a whole range of Bible teachings.

Anyway, your question about whether the faithful have free will in the Kingdom age. I think the answer to that is "yes". The difference will be that those people who will be there are those who have chosen to be there. In other words, those who have chosen in God's favour now. The main difference will be that our nature will be changed so that the *ability* to not sin will be inherent in us, whereas at the moment we can desire to stop sinning with all our might but we will still sin despite our best intention.

Passages such as 1Corinthians 15: 51
"the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
Or 1Jn 3:2: "it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." -seem to concur with this idea.

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

223. Comment #12532 by shauntheboy on December 12, 2006 at 12:26 pm

Jefferson,

If your prophecy of the money landing in your lap could be tested to the same degree as perhaps Ezekiel 37 or Daniel 2 for example, then you might have a valid point.

Obviously I realise that I give more credence to the reliability of the Bible and its prophetic record than you would, so realising that this argument will not satisfy you. But just the same there is a case to be made for the prophetic record of the Bible, and the work of those who wish to discredit the Bible must be relied on to avoid this conclusion.

Other Comments by shauntheboy

224. Comment #12536 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 12:30 pm

----The main difference will be that our nature will be changed so that the *ability* to not sin will be inherent in us----

Why didn't God create the earth like this in the first place? Sadism?

Angels have the "inherent ability to sin" but simply have enormous willpower to avoid doing so. Two-thirds of the angels that God created have the potential to sin but have never done so. That's pretty impressive.

Why were people instead created by God to be so morally weak by comparison?

Sorry, but none of this makes any sense. You're only buying it because you think the book is special, therefore you need to believe what's in it. That dog just isn't hunting.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

225. Comment #12538 by Mark Taunton on December 12, 2006 at 12:37 pm

Kingasaurus, I'm not clear where your "two-thirds of the angels" comes from in the Bible. Reference, please?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

226. Comment #12539 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 12:41 pm

You don't buy the usual story that Satan and his followers rebelled against god and were cast out of heaven?

If you don't think one-third of the angels allied themselves with Satan, and were cast out with him, give me the story you think better describes the situation. Feel free to argue with other Christians to your heart's content about actual numbers.

I think many interpret that it comes from here:

Revelation 12:4
"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born."

The actual proportions don't change my argument, however.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

227. Comment #12545 by S on December 12, 2006 at 1:36 pm

In response to Shaunyboy and to complement Torbjörn:

The randomness that I refer to is the genetic mutation. Only random mutation can bring about the type of species changing characteristics that evolution demands. I contend again that citing examples of pesticide or antibiotic resistance are not examples of this type of change, they are neither random nor species changing.

Not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying pesticide resistance and antibiotic resistance are not examples of genetic mutation or that the genetic mutation in these cases are not random? If it is the former, then this is incorrect. If it is the latter, then this is incorrect. Any mutation tends to be random (not totally – you have hypervariable regions of DNA that are more prone to mutation – that's how our immune systems work so well). Whether mutation occurs in insects, humans or bacteria the mutations tend to be random. In all cases, the selection process is not.

Mutations in insects or bacteria just have a greater selective pressure on them when exposed to pesticides and antibiotics. Under these conditions virtually all of the insects and bacteria die (that's the point of these toxic agents). Their environment is so stringent, life is so difficult for them, that within the genetically diverse population (as many populations are), only a very few survive. These are the ones that have a genetic background (generated by random mutation) that can tolerate the chemicals that were fatal to the rest of the population. This small population, which is quite sick, but not dead, then grows and has inbuilt resistance. If the exposure to pesticide or antibiotic continues, then this continues to select for better resistance as the faster growing healthy mutants (again generated by random mutation) outnumber the original sickly (but tolerant) individuals. This is exactly the same principle as evolution; in fact this is evolution by natural selection. It uses the same mechanisms to generate variability (you just need to look at humans to see the wide range of possibilities). When the environment changes, and some of the population dies off, you're left with the genetically lucky individuals.
Regarding the 'species changing' thing. I've already cited examples of new species of fruit flies generated by simply changing their diets and isolating the two populations. The geographic isolation of 2 groups of the species tend to lead to 2 distinct gene pools. If their respective environments are quite different, then their gene pools will become quite different due to different selective pressures and hence they themselves become different. We can see the distinct gene pools in humans; native Japanese look different from native Africans, look different from native Scandinavians, et cetera. This, too, is due to geographic isolation.

Regarding the "time thing". You as a molecular biologist (Steve) may believe that their has been enough time (and your envelope calculation makes a lot of assumptions!), but there are mathmaticians who look at the numbers and the probabilty factors involved and say - 4.6 billion is not enough time. Some of these mathmaticians such as Dembski certainly have a Christian case to promote, but others are just as much atheists as you (such as Wikramasingh and Hoyle) yet they cannot accept that NDT is viable as the science of universe unfolds before us.

A mathematician needs to make assumptions too; at least a biologist makes good assumptions (as one understands the mechanisms involved). I have a good understanding mathematics, and the mathematics is quite elementary really – no need for the fancy stuff here. With regards to the late Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, they were important proponents of the Panspermia hypothesis
Panspermia suggests that the seeds of life are in the Universe, that they may have delivered life to Earth from elsewhere. This is a controversial hypothesis, but it is compatible with evolution on earth (or elsewhere – the bacteria, if from space, needed to evolve anyway). So I'm not sure how they support your augment. If anything, they support evolution by natural selection here on earth.

And Mark – please stop banging on about Newton. He had as much of a clue about evolution by natural selection, as he had about personal computers.

Other Comments by S

228. Comment #12553 by Mark Taunton on December 12, 2006 at 2:55 pm

Steve,

Sorry you think I'm "banging on". I suppose I have repeated myself a bit in my posts on this. I'm just puzzled why nobody has yet even attempted to show where the error is, in my logic, or my assertions of fact. All people have so far said is effectively "nobody believes you", which seems to me to be pretty much the same as the "argument from incredulity" that creationists get condemned for.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

229. Comment #12636 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 2:42 am

Mark, I believe brian gave you some reasons a while back and pointed out that the Jews have returned home many times in the past.

I have little faith in the mathematical arguements. They do not factor enough biology into them. How do you factor in developmentally important genes like Hox genes, which have potential for massive changes in body plan?

Other Comments by BillySands

230. Comment #12687 by down_under on December 13, 2006 at 9:16 am

Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time is called the Dark Ages

Other Comments by down_under

231. Comment #12688 by down_under on December 13, 2006 at 9:21 am

I previously have read lots of arugments for and against the exsistance of God and while the arguments against have lots of evidence, some concrete, some with alot of gaps, some simply circumstantional, i have seen no real evidence in the argument for gods existance.

Many people seem to have the mindset of " We dont understand fully how this works so it must be God" (the Eye and evoloution being 2 perfect examples)

That is how cavemen thought, that is how medival people thought, with the dangerous addition of "and we'll kill anyone who disagrees"

id much rather have the mindset of "we dont fully understand how this works, lets find out"

I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than a mind closed by belief

Other Comments by down_under

232. Comment #12691 by down_under on December 13, 2006 at 9:27 am

As for the whole "science is full of theorys so its a faith" that argument is a waste of time

Theory is the best kind of science, why?
Because a theory is never prooven, therefore it is constantly tested.
Thousands of scientists trying to proove or disproove certain theorys everyday and improoving our understanding as they do so, Evoloution has passed all these tests with flying colours, it would be interesting to test gods existance in the same way

as for "everything is so complex so god started it" the universe is billions of years old, enough time for complex things to evolve
and if god done it then surly he is more complex which leads to the question what created God, surly he wasnt already there or just came about, he's too complex

Other Comments by down_under

233. Comment #12693 by down_under on December 13, 2006 at 9:29 am

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."
It's an oral history. It was passed down, word-of-mouth, father to son, from Adam to Seth, from Seth to Enos, from Enos to Cainan, for 40 generations, a growing, changing, story, it was handed down, word-of-mouth, father to son. Until Moses finally gets it down on lambskin. But lambskins wear out, and need to be recopied. Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.
From Hebrew it's translated into Arabic, from Arabic to Latin, from Latin to Greek, from Greek to Russian, from Russian to German, from German to an old form of English that you could not read. Through 400 years of evolution of the English language to the book we have today, which is: a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.
You can't put a grocery list through that many translations, copies, and re-telling, and not expect to have some big changes in the dinner menu when the kids make it back from Kroger's.
And yet people are killing each other over this written word.

Other Comments by down_under

234. Comment #12694 by down_under on December 13, 2006 at 9:35 am

Some people just can't understand that they can't understand what they can't understand

Other Comments by down_under

235. Comment #12739 by S on December 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Hi Mark,

I think we've shown the error in your logic pretty well – just look down the posts again. Read The God Delusion again. We have provided logic, reason, pointed to direct and physical evidence. It is just that you are not thinking about, and not realising, what we are saying. Your logic and reason shields are up. And the massive holes in your argument are blind spots that you don't (want to) see. I really we wish we could help you understand. To us it is really quite simple and obvious. Emperor's new clothes is a good way to describe the situation.

Regarding predictions. I'll refrain from using the term prophecy as this suggests a divine source, which is not accurate. Predictions can be made by anyone. People like Leonardo da Vinci and Arthur C. Clarke have been much more accurate at predicting, than the bible – they even had diagrams to back them up.

I and many others predicted before the war started that Iraq would now be a mess. This is one of the many reasons we marched through London in protest. And we were right. Was there divine intervention or was it just pretty obvious, based on previous experience?

Just because a prediction turns out to be correct, doesn't mean there was a divine source, even if it is written in the bible. At very best, Israel is a self-fulfilling prophecy (oops...I ended up using the term) and Jews have been in that region for the last 3 millennia anyway.

Other Comments by S

236. Comment #12760 by Joadist on December 13, 2006 at 4:51 pm

Shaunyboy,

We seem to have a semantic disagreement.

You say that without 'free will' we could make no choices. Does that mean we could not choose to breathe? Would we die of thirst because we could not choose to drink?

If so, then we had Free Will without God.
If not, then you are using 'Free Will' to describe plain old ordinary will. Dogs and cats manage to make choices. Do they have Free Will?

In my world, if I rob a bank, I have broken a law.
In your world, if I rob a bank, I have broken a law AND committed a sin.

So, my question is, Why the unnecessary redundancy of adding SIN to what is already a crime?

Kingasaurus, Quite Rightly.

Free Will was invented by Apologists. It was a way to explain why a perfect God created an imperfect world. It can't be God's fault, so it must be ours. God loves to take credit when things go right, but he vanishes whenever anything goes wrong. Ever heard a kid say "I didn't break the cookie jar, the floor broke it"?
That is Free Will in a nutshell.

Other Comments by Joadist

237. Comment #12801 by Mark Taunton on December 13, 2006 at 11:48 pm

Billy,

(383): "Mark, I believe brian gave you some reasons a while back and pointed out that the Jews have returned home many times in the past."

Sorry, I haven't been able to find such a response from Brian - can you tell me which comment number(s) you are referring to? - thanks. (I searched on "Jew" through all the comments so far. I can't find anything about multiple past returns, from anyone posting here; but maybe the word "Jew" itself was absent from the specific comment.)

Yes, the Jews have indeed returned to their land more than once. The first time was after the Babylonian exile. The second – effectively total - exile was imposed by Rome. The eviction process was gradual, beginning in the latter half of the first century as the first Jewish revolt was put down: Jerusalem fell in AD70, Masada in AD74. It was completed soon after 135 AD, when the second revolt under Simon Bar Kokhba was also defeated. (Incidentally, this is pertinent to the timing question you raised earlier (253). The non-instantaneousness (sorry!) of such events allows that, though the last deportations may have occurred less than 70 years before the first captives came back, the period between first departure and first return could still be the 70 years Jeremiah foretold.)

My argument is concerned with the fulfilment of Bible prophecy in relation to the Jews and their history since AD135. I focus on that period in order to avoid allegations of post-event revision of the Bible – the Hebrew part of it at least was well defined by then, as the Dead Sea scrolls show.

Sorry to have been a little vague before. I was not referring to the broader debate in this forum. I was looking for someone to point out where in this specific argument I had made an error, either in respect of faulty logic, or in respect of historical facts. Steve has now suggested one line of attack on the former, which I hope to respond to in a future post.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

238. Comment #12804 by Joadist on December 14, 2006 at 12:03 am

The biblical prophesy of Jews returning to their homeland is only true if you believe that Winston Churchill was God.

Other Comments by Joadist

239. Comment #12805 by Mark Taunton on December 14, 2006 at 12:03 am

Kingasaurus,

Briefly in answer to your question (380). None of God's angels have ever sinned, God evidently made them incapable of it (as I hope to become, at a future day). Note: those angels are distinct from the devil's angels - the latter phrase refers to sinning human beings. I'd say more but have no time now, sorry.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

240. Comment #12807 by Mark Taunton on December 14, 2006 at 12:08 am

Joadist: where does Winston Churchill's (non-)divine status come into it? The Bible contains prophecy that the Jews would return to their homeland and become a nation again. The Jews have now returned to their homeland and become a nation again. It is true.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

241. Comment #12836 by beders on December 14, 2006 at 1:48 am

Atheist, we keep making the same old mistake: Discussing details of this old book, discussing subtleties of evolution instead of asking the believers the hard questions:

Where is your evidence?
And by evidence I mean evidence for the existence of god and not evidence for historical events described in parts of the bible.

What makes the bible more credible than any scientific paper? What makes the bible more credible than, say, the quran or the gilgamesh epos or the Rigveda of Hinduism?

Other Comments by beders

242. Comment #12842 by BillySands on December 14, 2006 at 2:15 am

Hi Mark,
Maybe Brian wrote that on a different thread. I don't really think you can squeeze an extra couple of years into jeremiah. Also in the first year of his reign in babylon, Cyrus proclaimed that they could go home and the did (ezra 1?). Archaeologists have also shown that the exile was far from complete and that the lad was not desolate, and babylon was not destroyed as jeremiah predicted. Some of this detail can be found in the bible unearthed by finklestein and silberman if you are interested
Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

243. Comment #12864 by Kingasaurus on December 14, 2006 at 5:43 am

---Briefly in answer to your question (380). None of God's angels have ever sinned, God evidently made them incapable of it (as I hope to become, at a future day).----

So Satan isn't a fallen angel?

What is he then? An uncomfortable anomaly? God's uncreated evil twin?

What are demons then, if not rebellious angels - as mainstream Christian theology tells us?

Satan isn't God, he's not human, and he's not a plant or an animal. What's the only alternative that's left?

You'd be better off quitting this forum and arguing with other Christians about this stuff until you can get your story straight. It's quite maddening trying to argue Christian theology when nearly every one of you has different answers to supposedly straightforward questions.

Shouldn't GOD make himself plain so that disagreements like this are rare instead of common?

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

244. Comment #12882 by BillySands on December 14, 2006 at 7:29 am

Mark, Sorry if you feel ignored. My view of the book of daniel is that it is bad history masquarading as prophecy. It was probably actually written around the time of the maccabean revolt. I therefore think that three of the kingdoms of Daniel 2 had already existed by the time that it was written. The 4th was probably the seleucid threat of Antiochus epiphanies. A guy who desecrated the temple and would have seemed like evil incarnate to the jews. I dont know if you are familiar with theories concerning the date of the book of Daniel, but here is a brief introduction if you are interested. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/daniel.html

Other Comments by BillySands

245. Comment #12889 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 14, 2006 at 8:06 am

Comment #12805 by Mark Taunton on December 14, 2006 at 12:03 am

Briefly in answer to your question (380). None of God's angels have ever sinned, God evidently made them incapable of it (as I hope to become, at a future day).

Exactly ... so why not skip the whole mortal coil, death, ressurection, redemption and skip straight to the incapable of sin part?

Mark and Shaun, it's been fun, but we've really explained our position as fully as possible. I hope someday you look back on this interaction and realise what nonsense any kind of organised religion is.

All the best.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

246. Comment #12900 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 14, 2006 at 9:29 am

>>Comment #12836 by beders<<

AN EXCELLENT POST! Theists always insist that we provide evidence for this, provide evidence for that, explain our answers to every damned question ever considered by Man!

Atheists! We all KNOW that we don't have every answer - the Theists are the ones who claim all-knowledge in the omnipotence of God.

This can be broken down REAL simple. Theists:

Provide PROPER EMPIRICAL evidence of God's existence, please. HOW do you KNOW he exists?
Provide PROPER EMPIRICAL evidence that the Bible is correct - and HOW do you KNOW?

There's none. You know it and we know it.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

247. Comment #12914 by down_under on December 14, 2006 at 11:15 am

Heres a good question for theists

WHERE is Heaven????
WHERE is Hell???

People once belived heaven was in the sky, hell below our feet......science has prooved that the sky is nothing but clouds, air, gas and atmosphere, below our feet is the Earths crust, mantle and core.....

Other Comments by down_under

248. Comment #12915 by down_under on December 14, 2006 at 11:17 am

Heres a nice little video for all you hard-core creationists who belive that the bible is to be taken litterally as the word of God.......

By famous and hilarious atheist comedian Ricky Gervais, if you are a creationist you may not want to watch this as it makes too much sense and will probably open your eyes to reason....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7520848619246996399

Other Comments by down_under

249. Comment #12923 by Thrall on December 14, 2006 at 12:00 pm

That video is hilarious.

Other Comments by Thrall

250. Comment #12958 by Mark Taunton on December 14, 2006 at 4:00 pm

Beders writes (395) about

"… asking the believers the hard questions -

Where is your evidence?
And by evidence I mean evidence for the existence of god and not evidence for historical events described in parts of the bible.

What makes the bible more credible than any scientific paper? What makes the bible more credible than, say, the quran or the gilgamesh epos or the Rigveda of Hinduism?"


As I will attempt to show, what makes the bible credible is how many of its detailed, specific, large scale and unique predictions (prophecies) have come true. Let me give some of the evidence I find for that position, as you requested.

Although I include part of what you said, and I am using the Bible, I'm not giving just "evidence for historical events": the events are historical and not to my knowledge disputed by anyone in this forum. Let me add in the critical extra words that make all the difference:

"historical events, described in parts of the bible" *which had not yet happened at the time they were described*

In other words, predictions, indeed very long term predictions, not just "historical events".

The prophecies of the Bible include many predictions of events that have certainly happened after the Bible was written, many of them a long time after. Even the most sceptical here would allow (I hope!) that the Hebrew ("old testament") text, where the main prophecies I refer to are found, was already in existence by, at the very latest, the end of the 1st Century (witness the Dead Sea scrolls).

Yet the prophecies found in that text give unambiguous accounts, in advance, about the Jewish people's future history, far beyond the 1st century. The following sequence is explicitly laid out, in order. The Jewish people, through their generations, would experience the following events:

+ invasion of Israel by a powerful army from a distant country, speaking an alien (non-Semitic) language,
who would besiege their cities until they fell;

+ in those sieges they would be driven to cannibalism;

+ the survivors would be removed from their own land;

+ they would be sold as slaves;

+ they would be dispersed into many countries;

+ they would be persecuted and attacked wherever they went;

+ they would find no stability anywhere, but would have to move from one country to another;

+ they would be diminished, yet would continue to survive as a people and retain their identity;

+ attempts would be made to draw them back to the land of Israel, as if fishing for them;

+ but only after being hunted down would they eventually be caused to regather there;

+ they would not go back as a reformed people, believing and honouring their God, but as still secular;

+ they would at last form a nation again in their land;

+ they would have Jerusalem as its capital, following its liberation from Gentile control;

+ as dwellers in that land they would experience fierce opposition from their near relatives the Arab peoples;

+ the Arabs would claim the same territory;

+ the Arabs would lay claim to Jerusalem, seeking control of it for themselves;

+ Jerusalem would be a fundamental bone of contention, causing ongoing international stresses.


And so it has come about. All these things have indeed happened, detail by detail, just as the Bible predicted.


In case you think the above elements are pulled as separate tiny scraps from random disconnected places, they are not. The first eight points are all summarised from a single long, extremely detailed, ordered prophecy by Moses in Deuteronomy 28, that describes the consequences for Israel if they continued to rebel against Yahweh. Most if not all of those points are also taken up by later prophets.

The remaining details can be found repeatedly, grouped together as ordered sub-sequences or sub-sets of the above, in the words of those later prophets. I can give precise references for every point. (I've not done so here, for lack of time.)

The final element I put forward is that these prophecies are not given in the Bible as random disjointed ideas with no context. The contexts are specific. For example, in Deu.28, it is clearly asserted that if the Israelites chose to obey Yahweh, he would bless them. But if they chose to disobey, the bad things, as in the first 8 items above, would happen to them. It was their decision. Sadly, as a people, they far more often made the wrong choice, and the consequences came on them, exactly as foretold. Nonetheless, the Bible speaks of individuals and small groups who down the centuries did, and would, seek to obey God, believing his word.

The claim is made repeatedly that the God of the Bible, as the creator of the heavens and the earth, with everything in them, knows the future in advance, and indeed is active in human affairs to direct them according to his purpose. The Bible says that he chooses to give these detailed predictions to his prophets, deliberately setting them out as evidence for his reality and the truth of the Bible in its many other aspects also.

That's the gist of my evidence. Please consider it seriously. I know that several here will probably get very cross about the morality (or otherwise) as they perceive it, of God's actions towards his people, that is implied above. I can't help that, but I still appeal for consideration of the case.

It's certainly not the sum total of my argument, but it lays out the basis on which I find strong reasons to take the Bible seriously. Note in particular that there is no inductive aspect to the predictions (unlike, say, my prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that if I let drop this keyboard it will accelerate towards the floor). We cannot simply say "yes, but anyone could have predicted that, it was inevitable, it's just the same thing that happens over and over again." In my view, it doesn't, and no-one could have predicted those things in that level of detail, in such a certain manner as the prophets do. If you think otherwise, please present your evidence and reasons.

I know I cannot of myself make any useful prediction about the future, other than on a very short term and local scale, or in very general terms, based on our common human experience and the discoveries of science about how the world we see works. I assert that the large scale experience of a whole ethnic group, over scores of future generations, is completely beyond the predictive capabilities of even the most profoundly perceptive human being, or group of same. How could it not be?

In a scientific context, you test a hypothesis, such as might be written in a textbook, by seeing what predictions it makes, and checking whether its predictions hold in reality. I and others have equivalently done that with the Bible, testing its predictions against reality. I have found that so far it has all worked out in such extraordinary detail, yet in a way I cannot see as being plausibly explained without God, that I am persuaded that it is true, and that the God of Israel, the God of the Bible, does indeed exist.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton