Problems - The Root Cause

[Aupmanyav]

You don't know that, because there is no strong scientific theory of everything in physical terms.

No one really knows, including those who thump their books. But that only 'physical energy' existed at the time of Big Bang has the best evidence.

 

[nPeace]

That wasnt the question i said wasnt answered. Go back and read what I said again.

When something is important to me, especially a question, and especially if the person apparently missed it, I ask it again.
If that's too hard for me, I would not expect the person to view the question as important.
Maybe the question isn't important to you?

That's entirely the point. The source's reliability and trustworthiness has to be demonstrated. The way to do that is to show the work of how they arrive at their conclusions.

Of course. That hasn't been done?
I know it has... more than a few times.

How would you feel if someone claimed that about your religion?

Appreciative of the person's honesty, and willingness to express their convictions.
More than one person has done that though, and I was not upset with them. I was still smiling with them, and happy and eager to talk with them, if they were willing.
I don't remember any being willing... and they weren't smiling.

Would you take that claim seriously?

Of course. I'm interested in how people feel, and happy to understand why... if only they would tell me.
No need to be shy.

Would you take seriously the accusation that you aren't really an advocate of morality based on God's laws, you just say you are?

Sure. As I mentioned above.
Always happy and willing to hear the basis of one's claims... if there are any.

What does "good" mean, there?

Good means good, as in beneficial, not bad... but opposite to.
Like a good apple, as opposed to bad.
The good apple is beneficial when eaten. The bad apple isn't.

What makes something good? What criteria are you using to make that determination?

Are you asking me who or what determines what good is?
It's not dependent on what we think... That's for sure.
So there must be a standard that's universal.
It's already set, just as the laws of the universe are.
They are set by a law giver.
For me, finding out who or what set those laws, is important.
I think we can, and I think I have.
The next thing is to taste and see.
(Psalm 34:8) . . .Taste and see that Jehovah is good. . .
In other words experience. Like the son that experienced his father's laws were good.

I think you're confusing me with @Polymath257.

Nope. It was you. I can try to find it.

Or perhaps it's because people can arrive at similar moral conclusions with or without it having anything to do with God?

If you demonstrate that, I'll consider it.

The truth is, most of us have both experiences. We realize our parents were right about some things, and wrong about others. Much as so many of us realize about our religions. Which is precisely why it's so important to use our own critical thinking skills to draw our own reasoned conclusions about where they went wrong and where they didn't. Again, this is part of maturing as adults.

Our critical thinking skills are no different to our parents, so how is that any better?
What's the difference between a mature parent making bad decisions, and a maturing adult making bad decisions?

Again, we'd have to know God's thinking to figure out whether it's rational or helpful.

Wait. Everything I said was ignored evidently.
Did the illustration not explain that?

You didn't. But perhaps you will soon.

We'll see.

 

[Left Coast]

When something is important to me, especially a question, and especially if the person apparently missed it, I ask it again.
If that's too hard for me, I would not expect the person to view the question as important.
Maybe the question isn't important to you?

This is a weird manipulation. Why make a person repeat themselves when you can simply go back and correct yourself?

Again for you:

Firstly, I want to note that I didn't get an answer to my question here. How did you determine that the major moral problem of humanity is people "deciding to be their own god" when that demonstrably contradicts all the available evidence that most humans through history have been theistic?

Of course. That hasn't been done?
I know it has... more than a few times.

I keep asking but you keep avoiding. We shall see if I get a direct answer. What reasoning does God use to decide if something is moral or immoral?

Appreciative of the person's honesty, and willingness to express their convictions.
More than one person has done that though, and I was not upset with them. I was still smiling with them, and happy and eager to talk with them, if they were willing.
I don't remember any being willing... and they weren't smiling.

Did you believe their criticism was correct?

Good means good, as in beneficial, not bad... but opposite to.
Like a good apple, as opposed to bad.
The good apple is beneficial when eaten. The bad apple isn't.

Are you asking me who or what determines what good is?
It's not dependent on what we think... That's for sure.
So there must be a standard that's universal.
It's already set, just as the laws of the universe are.
They are set by a law giver.
For me, finding out who or what set those laws, is important.
I think we can, and I think I have.
The next thing is to taste and see.
(Psalm 34:8) . . .Taste and see that Jehovah is good. . .
In other words experience. Like the son that experienced his father's laws were good.

So good = beneficial, ie helpful or not harmful, yes? Why do you say that's "for sure" not dependent on what we think? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

If you demonstrate that, I'll consider it.

Sure. Why does your God prefer things that help others rather than harm them?

Our critical thinking skills are no different to our parents, so how is that any better?

Whoa, how did you arrive at that conclusion? The critical thinking of no child ever ends up superior to that of their parents?

What's the difference between a mature parent making bad decisions, and a maturing adult making bad decisions?

You seem to be assuming that both make only bad decisions. You seriously believe humans are not capable of learning from the mistakes of their parents and improving their own views and behaviors?

Wait. Everything I said was ignored evidently.
Did the illustration not explain that?

It didn't. Perhaps try again.

 

[paarsurrey]

I though of this after a conversation, in which one person indicated that peace and harmony was not absolutely defined, but relative to each persons view.
It reminded me of what people say about truth - that truth is relative to each person, hence there is no absolute truth.
That says to me, in other words, everything is determined by what we think or decide, individually.

This worldview really reminded me of the profound truth that was written centuries ago - the root cause of every problem on the face of the earth.
It starts in Genesis.

(Genesis 3:1-5)
1 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. 3 But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”

(Genesis 3:22)
22 Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. . . .

There are various ideas on how these verses should be understood.
I appreciate the way they are understood by Jehovah's Witnesses... not because I am one, but because their understanding is in line with the context, and makes more sense, if we take the Bible as a complete book, inspired by God, as Paul and Jesus said.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

In a nutshell, the understanding is that the tree of knowledge of good and bad was a real tree which God placed in the garden as a representation of his right as sovereign, to decide, or set the rules for his creation, as to what is good and bad.

In other words, there is only one set law or standard, on which to determine what is good, and what is bad. People do not decide that for themselves.
So for example, John Doe does not get to decide, X is good for me, and Y is bad for me, while Jane Doe is deciding X is bad for me, and Y is good for me.

We see the problem.
There is disharmony, disorder, disunity - even chaos.
This independence from God - the supreme law giver, is the root of all problems.

When Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, and eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, they were really rebelling against God's sovereignty - his right to rule them, and determine good and bad for them.
They chose to decide for themselves what was good, and what was bad.
This was instigated by the original serpent - the Devil, who encouraged the rebellion.

Hence, problem after problem, and why man can never fix the problems, because they cannot agree on any set standard.
Each person decides what is good, bad, peace, harmony, etc.

It's crazy, to me, that these cannot be identified in a definite way, but is left to subjective opinion. Crazy.
However, the same book that identifies the root cause of problems, also makes it clear that chaos, disorder... can only end, when one allows the source of true righteousness to determine what is good, or bad, for them.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace--as in all the churches of the saints.
Isaiah 32:17 The work of righteousness will be peace; the service of righteousness will be quiet confidence forever.

Is it not better to have one set standard, and law - from the supreme law giver - for all people to live by, especially considering that the evidence clearly shows, man does not know his way? Jeremiah 10:23

I don't get one exactly, will one kindly elaborate in one sentence " the root cause of the problems", please? Right?

Regards

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The cosmology of the bible is pretty much the cosmology of Babylon, so in terms of when it was written, it was right up to date. The only real uncertainty is whether the earth is flat like a plate (disk) or flat like a table (square or oblong).

I posted >this summary of the biblical evidence< some while ago now ─ goodness, five years back!

Did you overlook Job 26:7? Suspending the Earth “on nothing”? Such a concept would had been considered ridiculous, 1000 years ago. Yet this was written way before that, I believe around 3500 years ago.
And science confirms this Scripture’s accuracy!

And come on… your “summary of the biblical evidence”, is only evidence of its poetry. I mean that about half of the Hebrew Scriptures were written in a poetic style. I’m sure you know that.
Really now, if you read someone’s statement that they’d “search to the ends of the Earth”, would you scoff and say “that person doesn’t know science”?

Come on.

And furthermore, regarding Isaiah 40:22, I don’t really think God “sits”, do you? Another poetic tense.
But whether it’s above the Northpole, Southpole, or points in between, if it meant the earth was ‘flat’, it wouldn’t be a “circle”; it would be elliptical .
But from any position, the earth is round.

 

[nPeace]

Is that what I said? I don't think so.

I imagine there's a happy medium between "never kill anyone under any circumstances ever" and "slaughter people en masse" or "murder every firstborn child of an entire country," don't you think? When is it okay for angels to kill people?

Speaking of avoiding questions...

Great, so we should not accept something as true just because you, or someone else, says God said so. I'm glad we're on the same page there, at least.

We don't have to accept anything at all. That's a choice.
I believe it's reasonable to accept something as true, if the source is known to be true.
So no, we are not on the same page. I'm at the beginning of the book, and you are somewhere far from there.

There are some things man can never prove nor verify. However, one can trust a reliable source, especially if it's proven to be the source of truth.

Really? What is God's address? Phone number? Email? Set up a meeting between us, please.

With that attitude - applying physical man made things with extraterrestrial things - I rest my case.
What's the email address of the ETs being searched for?
We are getting closer to discovering life on other...

This is a weird manipulation. Why make a person repeat themselves when you can simply go back and correct yourself?

I hope you asked yourself that question.
I know I answered your questions. I don't need to look back.

Again for you:

Firstly, I want to note that I didn't get an answer to my question here. How did you determine that the major moral problem of humanity is people "deciding to be their own god" when that demonstrably contradicts all the available evidence that most humans through history have been theistic?

You did get an answer. Was it supposed to be an answer you were looking for?
I answered that question.
Does being theistic mean that one will not be or is not against God?
I think if we believe that, we will also have to believe that someone working for the C.I.A. will never betray or act against the C.I.A.
Do you believe that?
Claiming to be something does not mean you actually are.
Being among or in a group doesn't mean you actually are with the group in your thoughts and ideas.

In other words, being theistic does not mean one have not deciding to be their own god.

I keep asking but you keep avoiding. We shall see if I get a direct answer. What reasoning does God use to decide if something is moral or immoral?

God is perfect. You or I aren't.
When... If... you ever get perfect, come talk to me about your being able to decide if something is moral or immoral.

Did you believe their criticism was correct?

They had no basis. If they did, I would consider their criticism, and view it in the light of the evidence.

So good = beneficial, ie helpful or not harmful, yes?

More or less.

Why do you say that's "for sure" not dependent on what we think? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

It's not dependent on what we think... That's for sure.
We do not make perfect decisions. Oftentimes, what we think is right, is not, and we do not fail to make decisions on flawed thinking. That's why we have teachers.

A perfect teacher is far better.

Sure. Why does your God prefer things that help others rather than harm them?

God is good. God is love.

Whoa, how did you arrive at that conclusion? The critical thinking of no child ever ends up superior to that of their parents?

Did I say something different? No, I didn't.

You seem to be assuming that both make only bad decisions. You seriously believe humans are not capable of learning from the mistakes of their parents and improving their own views and behaviors?

Did I say something different? No, I didn't.
They are still both wrong, if they are... regardless of what level they are at.

It didn't. Perhaps try again.

That's okay. Your posts are informative where that's concerned.

 

[blü 2]

Did you overlook Job 26:7? Suspending the Earth “on nothing”? Such a concept would had been considered ridiculous, 1000 years ago. Yet this was written way before that, I believe around 3500 years ago.
And science confirms this Scripture’s accuracy!

3,500 years would take us back to the earliest known archaeological instances of Yahweh, whereas the Torah was written maybe 2,400 years ago, give or take a hundred or two. But the Canaanites were probably influenced by their fellow-semitic tribes in Mesopotamia, hence by Babylonian cosmology, from the start ─ whenever the 'start' was.

And remember that the earth isn't just 'suspended' on nothing, it's immovably fixed and the sky and its lights go round it ─ the sky being a solid dome you can walk on and to which the stars are affixed so that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. Of course, in alternative versions it stands immovable on pillars (which brings us to the 'turtles, turtles, all the way down' problem) and as Genesis 1 makes clear, there's water above and water below the flat earth,

And come on… your “summary of the biblical evidence”, is only evidence of its poetry. I mean that about half of the Hebrew Scriptures were written in a poetic style. I’m sure you know that.

My argument is that the cosmology of the bible is the cosmology of its day and age.

Why would it not be? They really did think like that then. They had no concept of heliocentry, gravity, orbits, deep space, what a star is.
And they didn't think the earth was spherical. They thought it was flat, like a table or a plate. Why, anyone could see that was correct, simply by looking.

Or put it this way ─ if they didn't have the cosmology of their own age (although as I say, I think my examples show convincingly that that's exactly what they had, and never deviated from) what cosmology did they have? The cosmology of 1000 CE? Of Galileo? Of 1900? Of the Big Bang? Of the James Webb telescope? Of the year 3000?

And where's the evidence for that?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

3,500 years would take us back to the earliest known archaeological instances of Yahweh, whereas the Torah was written maybe 2,400 years ago, give or take a hundred or two. But the Canaanites were probably influenced by their fellow-semitic tribes in Mesopotamia, hence by Babylonian cosmology, from the start ─ whenever the 'start' was.

And remember that the earth isn't just 'suspended' on nothing, it's immovably fixed and the sky and its lights go round it ─ the sky being a solid dome you can walk on and to which the stars are affixed so that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. Of course, in alternative versions it stands immovable on pillars (which brings us to the 'turtles, turtles, all the way down' problem) and as Genesis 1 makes clear, there's water above and water below the flat earth,
My argument is that the cosmology of the bible is the cosmology of its day and age.

Why would it not be? They really did think like that then. They had no concept of heliocentry, gravity, orbits, deep space, what a star is.
And they didn't think the earth was spherical. They thought it was flat, like a table or a plate. Why, anyone could see that was correct, simply by looking.

Or put it this way ─ if they didn't have the cosmology of their own age (although as I say, I think my examples show convincingly that that's exactly what they had, and never deviated from) what cosmology did they have? The cosmology of 1000 CE? Of Galileo? Of 1900? Of the Big Bang? Of the James Webb telescope? Of the year 3000?

And where's the evidence for that?

It seems you are adamant to apply a rigorous scientific understanding to what are obviously poetic words, while overlooking the import of the statement at Job 26:7.

But I’m hoping we can discuss this in an open & reasonable way.

You basically say the Israelite culture & understanding reflects a Babylonian influence. But in many respects, the Mosaic Law was vastly superior to Babylonian edicts. For one example, Babylonian laws (Hammurabi, etc.) certainly didn’t require cleanliness and washing to the extent of the Israelite laws.
Yet, only in the last 150 years has it become known how important cleanliness is to health.

Regarding “raqia” & “shamayim”, and their interaction in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Bible’s accuracy,
I submit these three links:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001461

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001949


https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1980723?q=science+attests+the+accuracy+of+the+Bible&p=par

Take care, my cousin.

 

[blü 2]

It seems you are adamant to apply a rigorous scientific understanding to what are obviously poetic words, while overlooking the import of the statement at Job 26:7.

But I’m hoping we can discuss this in an open & reasonable way.

You basically say the Israelite culture & understanding reflects a Babylonian influence. But in many respects, the Mosaic Law was vastly superior to Babylonian edicts. For one example, Babylonian laws (Hammurabi, etc.) certainly didn’t require cleanliness and washing to the extent of the Israelite laws.
Yet, only in the last 150 years has it become known how important cleanliness is to health.

Regarding “raqia” & “shamayim”, and their interaction in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Bible’s accuracy,
I submit these three links:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001461

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001949


https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1980723?q=science+attests+the+accuracy+of+the+Bible&p=par

Take care, my cousin.

One moment, old friend!

Before we go further, please tell me what the cosmology of the Tanakh actually is, where it comes from, and how it's present in the Tanakh. That would be more persuasive, I suggest.

 

[nPeace]

One moment, old friend!

Before we go further, please tell me what the cosmology of the Tanakh actually is, where it comes from, and how it's present in the Tanakh. That would be more persuasive, I suggest.

How does Aristotle’s teachings compare with those in the Bible? Which teachings have withstood the test of time? Consider these three questions on cosmology here, in answer to your questions.

One of the links @Hockeycowboy provided answers your questions.
Did you read it?
Greek astronomer and philosopher Anaximander (sixth century B.C.E.) held: “The Earth is cylindrical, three times as wide as it is deep, and only the upper part is inhabited. But this Earth is isolated in space, and the sky is a complete sphere in the center of which is located, unsupported, our cylinder, the Earth, situated at an equal distance from all the points of the sky.” A century later, Anaxagoras believed both the earth and the moon to be flat.

The Bible was far ahead of the scientific conceptions taught at that time. In the 15th century before the Common Era, it described the Creator as “hanging the earth upon nothing,” and in the eighth century B.C.E., it spoke of “the circle of the earth.” (Job 26:7; Isa. 40:22) Is that not exactly how the earth appeared to you on your television screen when the astronauts photographed it from the moon?


You say.... I believe you did, although not in these exact words...
“[In the Bible... t]he earth on which humanity dwells is seen as a round, solid object, perhaps a disk, floating upon a limitless expanse of water. Paralleling this lower body of water is a second, similarly limitless, above, from which water descends in the form of rain through holes and channels piercing the heavenly reservoir. The moon, sun, and other luminaries are fixed in a curved structure which arches over the earth. This structure is the familiar ‘firmament’ (rāqîa‛) of the priestly account.”

That's what you claimed. True?
Yes, that picture disagrees with modern science. However, is this a fair assessment of the what the Bible teaches about cosmology?

Not at all. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states that such descriptions of the Hebrew universe are “in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O[ld] T[estament].” Where did those medieval ideas come from? As David C. Lindberg explains in The Beginnings of Western Science, they were largely based on the cosmology of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose works were the basis of much medieval learning.
Source.

Do you imagine that God would need to have the Bible writen in language that would appeal to 20th-century scientists?
Why would you imagine that?

 

[blü 2]

How does Aristotle’s teachings compare with those in the Bible? Which teachings have withstood the test of time? Consider these three questions on cosmology here, in answer to your questions.

One of the links @Hockeycowboy provided answers your questions.
Did you read it?
Greek astronomer and philosopher Anaximander (sixth century B.C.E.) held: “The Earth is cylindrical, three times as wide as it is deep, and only the upper part is inhabited. But this Earth is isolated in space, and the sky is a complete sphere in the center of which is located, unsupported, our cylinder, the Earth, situated at an equal distance from all the points of the sky.” A century later, Anaxagoras believed both the earth and the moon to be flat.

The Bible was far ahead of the scientific conceptions taught at that time. In the 15th century before the Common Era, it described the Creator as “hanging the earth upon nothing,” and in the eighth century B.C.E., it spoke of “the circle of the earth.” (Job 26:7; Isa. 40:22) Is that not exactly how the earth appeared to you on your television screen when the astronauts photographed it from the moon?


You say.... I believe you did, although not in these exact words...
“[In the Bible... t]he earth on which humanity dwells is seen as a round, solid object, perhaps a disk, floating upon a limitless expanse of water. Paralleling this lower body of water is a second, similarly limitless, above, from which water descends in the form of rain through holes and channels piercing the heavenly reservoir. The moon, sun, and other luminaries are fixed in a curved structure which arches over the earth. This structure is the familiar ‘firmament’ (rāqîa‛) of the priestly account.”

That's what you claimed. True?
Yes, that picture disagrees with modern science. However, is this a fair assessment of the what the Bible teaches about cosmology?

Not at all. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states that such descriptions of the Hebrew universe are “in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O[ld] T[estament].” Where did those medieval ideas come from? As David C. Lindberg explains in The Beginnings of Western Science, they were largely based on the cosmology of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose works were the basis of much medieval learning.
Source.

Do you imagine that God would need to have the Bible writen in language that would appeal to 20th-century scientists?
Why would you imagine that?

I don't imagine that at all.'Hanging the earth on nothing' is one writer's imaginative way of avoiding the 'turtles, turtles, all the way down' problem, but it remains the case that Genesis 1 describes water above the (flat) earth and water below the (flat) earth.

And in general, as I noted, the bible reflects the cosmology of its time and place, substantially the cosmology of ancient Babylon. As the >link< shows, they thought the earth was flat, and immovably fixed, and the sun and stars go round it, and the sky is a solid dome that you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

They had no concept of a spherical earth, orbits, gravity, the nature of the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, eclipses, meteors, deep space, galaxies &c

Why would you expect anything else?

And if 'anything else', what exactly? The cosmology of the year 1000 CE? Of Galileo? Of 1900? Of the Big Bang? Of the James Watt telescope? What, exactly?

I never get a straight answer to these questions.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't get one exactly, will one kindly elaborate in one sentence " the root cause of the problems", please? Right?
Regards

Shouldn't the title of a thread provide the OP's concise thought of the subject in a sentence to be debated/discussed, please? Right?

Regards

 

[nPeace]

I don't imagine that at all.'Hanging the earth on nothing' is one writer's imaginative way of avoiding the 'turtles, turtles, all the way down' problem, but it remains the case that Genesis 1 describes water above the (flat) earth and water below the (flat) earth.

Where did you read about a flat earth in Genesis, blu?

And in general, as I noted, the bible reflects the cosmology of its time and place, substantially the cosmology of ancient Babylon. As the >link< shows, they thought the earth was flat, and immovably fixed, and the sun and stars go round it, and the sky is a solid dome that you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

From your link, I see where you got the flat earth idea. Your imagination.
That's not the Bible blu. Seriously?

To prove it, take one verse from your link, one at a time, and show me where you read flat earth.

They had no concept of a spherical earth, orbits, gravity, the nature of the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, eclipses, meteors, deep space, galaxies &c

Why would you expect anything else?

Well I would expect to find those things in a science text book.
I can find a few of those books around the house.
However, in the Bible? Come on blu. You know the Bible is not a science text book. What are you trying to pull here. Wool over people's eyes.

And if 'anything else', what exactly? The cosmology of the year 1000 CE? Of Galileo? Of 1900? Of the Big Bang? Of the James Watt telescope? What, exactly?

I never get a straight answer to these questions.

Yes you did blu... but as usual, you never listen or pay any mind to them. You just repeat yourself ...and listen to yourself.

 

[blü 2]

Where did you read about a flat earth in Genesis, blu?

In Genesis 1.6 of course. A flat earth with water above and water below.

(Sorry to put you to the trouble of inventing some nonsense to try to explain that away ─ although I suspect that's the part you enjoy.)

From your link, I see where you got the flat earth idea. Your imagination.
That's not the Bible blu. Seriously?

Ah, the games you love to play.

Once again you didn't tell me what the cosmology of the bible actually is, or where it came from. Contrast that with my setting out chapter and verse ─ tut tut!

You know the Bible is not a science text book.

On the contrary, those quotes I gave you set out the cosmology of the bible, all the way through to the NT.

Still, I see your problem ─ once you allow skeptical reasoned enquiry near the bible, the whole thing falls apart, so you don't dare start. You haven't checked the cosmology of Babylon, you haven't informed yourself about the history of science and the ways in which the ancients understood nature. That's obviously a very difficult place you're in.

And consistently with that, you haven't told me what era of science the science of the bible belongs to, since you deny it follows the science of its own time. But of course you can't do that, because you know any sincere answer you give will be shot to ribbons in a flash.

Ah, old buddy, I don't know why you do it, but since it's what you do, I'm glad, in a way, that you enjoy it.

 

[nPeace]

In Genesis 1.6 of course. A flat earth with water above and water below.

(Sorry to put you to the trouble of inventing some nonsense to try to explain that away ─ although I suspect that's the part you enjoy.)

You created the nonsense blue.
The trouble is for you to explain how you came up with it.
Too much trouble for yah already? That's okay. We covered that ground before. It's still made up, last time we checked... Your story, that is.

Ah, the games you love to play.

Once again you didn't tell me what the cosmology of the bible actually is, or where it came from. Contrast that with my setting out chapter and verse ─ tut tut!

On the contrary, those quotes I gave you set out the cosmology of the bible, all the way through to the NT.

Still, I see your problem ─ once you allow skeptical reasoned enquiry near the bible, the whole thing falls apart, so you don't dare start. You haven't checked the cosmology of Babylon, you haven't informed yourself about the history of science and the ways in which the ancients understood nature. That's obviously a very difficult place you're in.

And consistently with that, you haven't told me what era of science the science of the bible belongs to, since you deny it follows the science of its own time. But of course you can't do that, because you know any sincere answer you give will be shot to ribbons in a flash.

Ah, old buddy, I don't know why you do it, but since it's what you do, I'm glad, in a way, that you enjoy it.

More time wasting? I'll leave you to play that with @Hockeycowboy. I aint got the time.

 

[blü 2]

We covered that ground before. It's still made up, last time we checked... Your story, that is.

That's right, my >link< to the cosmology of the bible, and your total failure to set out a reasoned alternative; your total evasions of answering the question, "if not the cosmology of their own time, what IS the cosmology of the bible, and WHEN is it from"?

But as I said, I understand your difficulties. Now, as every single time before, you'll run away without answering, and if I ever looked surprised, I don't any more.

See you next time.

 

[nPeace]

@SkepticThinker my answer was given in this thread, the one @Left Coast left.

I copied and pasted so you don't have to search through a post.

There is no need to question a dad that proves trustworthy... or do you disagree?.

It says this basically...
Not every stated law is questioned, nor needs to be, especially if it's been demonstrated that the stated law is from a trustworthy and reliable source.

When my dad commanded that I not run or play in the street, I might not have fully understood... or even agreed, but as I gained more understanding and experience, I came to see for myself that his law was good - sound, practical. So that I even repeated it to others.

In this same way, I have come to experience for myself, that God's stated laws are indeed good... always.
That experience, coupled with the fact that his word has time and again proved trustworthy, I see no need to question things that may seem to be at odds with reason.
Again and again, later understanding based on acquired wisdom, have proved that I was the one behind in thinking.
Proving this fact...
“For my [God's] thoughts are not your thoughts, And your ways are not my ways,” declares Jehovah. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So my ways are higher than your ways And my thoughts than your thoughts.
(Isaiah 55:8-9)

I believe it's reasonable to accept something as true, if the source is known to be true.

There are some things man can never prove nor verify. However, one can trust a reliable source, especially if it's proven to be the source of truth.

So, in a nutshell, if one has proven trustworthy and reliable, and time and again, has been shown to be right.

 

[Left Coast]

We don't have to accept anything at all. That's a choice.
I believe it's reasonable to accept something as true, if the source is known to be true.
So no, we are not on the same page. I'm at the beginning of the book, and you are somewhere far from there.

There are some things man can never prove nor verify. However, one can trust a reliable source, especially if it's proven to be the source of truth.

But your deity hasn't been "proven to be the source of truth." You have claimed that, but not demonstrated it. That's the whole point. You haven't even demonstrated that truth has a "source" at all, or if that phrase is even meaningful. The truth, from my perspective, is simply...what is.

With that attitude - applying physical man made things with extraterrestrial things - I rest my case.
What's the email address of the ETs being searched for?
We are getting closer to discovering life on other...

Firstly, we were comparing the evidence for your god's existence to the evidence for my existence. You claimed that we had the same level of evidence for your god as you do for me, not aliens. That's why I brought up email addresses and so on.

But if you want to talk about aliens...what kind of evidence do you think scientists are looking for to discover aliens, if not physical evidence? If we ever do discover aliens, guess how we're going to do so? By detecting physical evidence!

You did get an answer. Was it supposed to be an answer you were looking for?
I answered that question.

Does being theistic mean that one will not be or is not against God?
I think if we believe that, we will also have to believe that someone working for the C.I.A. will never betray or act against the C.I.A.
Do you believe that?
Claiming to be something does not mean you actually are.
Being among or in a group doesn't mean you actually are with the group in your thoughts and ideas.

In other words, being theistic does not mean one have not deciding to be their own god.

If that's the case, then I don't even know what the phrase "deciding to be their own god" means. If one can be theistic, and believe morals come from one's god, and lives one's live in accordance to those morals to the best of one's ability...how in the world are they "deciding to be their own god?" Are you deciding to be your own god, right now?

God is perfect. You or I aren't.
When... If... you ever get perfect, come talk to me about your being able to decide if something is moral or immoral.

As in the other thread...I decide when and how I reply to you, within the site's rules. I absolutely get to weigh in one what I consider moral or immoral, particularly when your worldview is predicated on selling me on the idea that your god is moral or that the root of the world's problems is that we don't buy into the rules of your religion.

More or less.

Great. I actually agree with that. So if that's our definition, we don't need a god to determine that. We can look at the evidence to see if an action causes benefit or harm. God is completely unnecessary in that evaluation.

God is good. God is love.

That's nice. Although I don't need a god to value goodness or love. I can simply value them for their own sake.

Did I say something different? No, I didn't.
They are still both wrong, if they are... regardless of what level they are at.

It isn't a binary question, though you keep treating it like one. We are right about some things, and wrong about other things. But we are also capable of learning and improvement over time. And we are capable of recognizing when authority figures in our lives have gotten things wrong as well.

This will be my last reply to you in this thread. The last word is yours if you want it.