The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[AlphaAlex115]

sure.

Quality post

 

[Thief]

Incorrect! One would assume that nothingness came before the creator. But if you think about it nothingness is something. And it's more likely that there'd be something rather than nothing at all.

I am hitherto no longer an atheist. I now believe that we're all parts of a subconsciousness of a great being; and when that being sleeps we are awake, and when the being is awake we are asleep.

I'm still working on the timezones flaw. And people that work at night... and people that suffer from insomnia.

I have insomnia....grew up with it.

As for the waking and sleeping of God.....
I've heard that God does not sleep.
It's a chemistry thing for the body.
Spirit is likely to not need it.

Not a new idea/thought that God is dreaming all of this.
My self defense teacher waxed over philosophically one day....and he holds to this notion.

 

[1robin]

Or nothing is everything.

No, nothing is "officially" the lack of being. It is no the lack of x or y it is the lack of being it's self. Being is not a thing it is a property of a thing. Nothing lacks both the thing and this property.

 

[Thief]

No, nothing is "officially" the lack of being. It is no the lack of x or y it is the lack of being it's self. Being is not a thing it is a property of a thing. Nothing lacks both the thing and this property.

So you might insist that God is something?
(as in Creator)
(as in Spirit)
(as in the First in mind and heart)

 

[1robin]

So you might insist that God is something?
(as in Creator)
(as in Spirit)
(as in the First in mind and heart)

Exactly.

 

[Ouroboros]

Good job explaining yourself.

Thanks.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you might insist that God is something?
(as in Creator)
(as in Spirit)
(as in the First in mind and heart)

Yes, God is something - your imagination.

 

[Thief]

Yes, God is something - your imagination.

I have one fantastic sense of dream!

No seriously.....nothing greater than your imagination?
Nothing Greater than you?

Top of the lie life form you are?.......really?

 

[viole]

Yes, but that is irrelevant. It is the purpose for which it was created that matters and it would not have fulfilled unless love and freewill existed. Do you want to be an automaton?

Well, I am an automaton. I just have a huge number of possible states my "free" will cannot possibly trascend.

So, do you think there is free will in Heaven?

I am not sure what purpose that was given for.

1. If an accusation of genocide it was not as the attack was caused by sin not race.
2. If an example of considering man and beast equal that is confounded by other verses and tons of them and by the fact that Israel was not to be encumbered with fights over booty during this time. They in fact disobeyed and were stalled by legislation over rights to captures and paid a heavy price for it in many ways.
3. What else you got?

Isn't much simpler to postulate that God had nothing to do with it? After all many acts of genocide have been justified by saying "God wants it". So, why not this one? Because it is in the Bible?

I think it is way more plausible than imagining a God that commands such things.

He hated them both but probably liked the vengeance aspect. Please read his diaries. On a door to Dachau it says: (paraphrased) I intended to make a race devoid of conscience, proud, both impious and cruel.
In the bible it says:
New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God made the Jews his chosen people, Hitler tried to eradicate every last one of them and you think they both had the same views. Come on, two things do not get more opposite.

Here is a few of the thousands of quotes;

The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian...

Roman Christendom: For the record: Hitler hated Christianity and described himself as "a complete pagan"

And, again, I never said he was Christian. Theim does not entail Christianity, necessariliy. For sure, he was not an atheist.

I have no idea but Christianity begins with recognizing truths for which you are miraculously more certain of than the most basic of facts. I have never seen heaven or transparent God but when saved I did instantly know certain things were true without the slightest idea why. Gold can be transparent the same as glass despite having atoms, it is even used that way industrially. You want to blow your mind look up monatomic Gold. Different subject all together but fascinating, whether true or not I have no idea.

And who is taliking of Transparent Gods? I already know God is very transparent . I was talking of transparent flowers made of gold. If that makes sense for you, then it is ok.

Compared to what?

I don't know. The Catholic church, maybe?

I did not say Hell is annihilation, I said it (or should have) is eventual annihilation. In revelations it is thrown into the pit, but not until then.

Well they didn't tell me any of them. Read 3 1/2 minutes in Hell and even if you think he is lying I bet you can't tell me he is insincere if your honest. He (I forget his name) and another lady he had never heard of wound up on a talk show. He was an artist and she had hired one and both had made sketches of scenes they witnessed. Some were identical in every detail.

I never said they are insincere. A lot of deluded people are totally sincere about their delusion. That is what delusion means. I recently had to debate that report of heaven issued by that neuroscientist in coma who wrote a book about it, after the coma. Probably the biggest joke of all.

Don't you really find a possible alternative explanation? It is very easy to be fooled. Uri Geller managed to fool even many in the the scientific community, and he was insincere, so nobody is immune.

Hope springs eternal, and people want to believe, with all their heart and against all odds. I once saw a live show about people talking with the deceased. It was really amazing until a professional magician/skeptic in the audience showed the tricks those charalatans were using. Who was the bad guy? The skeptic who killed the hope of all those people. That was illuminating.

By the way, assuming that they really saw heaven, how does it work? Do you think we can bypass free will and test God's existence by simply depriving brains of oxygen?

So you think faith in a spiritual force is more consistent with atheism than theism. That is not even a bell curve. Its' propaganda. If just one of those people were right your world view isn't. The same is not reversible. In fact if anyone at any time experienced a miracle your wrong, if and only if every single one is wrong are you right. I would rather be in Vegas.

I was addressing Christianity and not theism in general. You seem to confuse the two things. And yes, if one puts the X on the spiritual force, whatver that is, and not on the existence of God, then she is not a Christian, or she cannot read.

Where would you have put the X?

You know there actually was a significant number of professed Jedi's in recent surveys. May the Schwartz be with you.

Oh, I know. My son was also a disciple. Bury the movie in some cave for two thousands years and who knows? It might become the next holy movie, with disciples, witnesses and all the rest.

May the farce be with you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[AlphaAlex115]

Thanks.

Quality.

 

[AlphaAlex115]

I have insomnia....grew up with it.

As for the waking and sleeping of God.....
I've heard that God does not sleep.
It's a chemistry thing for the body.
Spirit is likely to not need it.

Not a new idea/thought that God is dreaming all of this.
My self defense teacher waxed over philosophically one day....and he holds to this notion.

I think God needs to sleep.

 

[1robin]

Yes, God is something - your imagination.

Explain why hundreds of millions of people who do not know me sincerely claim to have experienced my imagination then? Why did my imagination write 750,000 of the most influential words in human history? Why do NT scholars (regardless of faith) have a consensus on my imagination existing 2000 years before I was born, dying on a cross, leaving an empty tomb behind, and appearing to even it's enemies after death? Why is my imagination the most textual attested historical figure in ancient history? Come on man, if all you are interested in is triviality and trolling there are more appropriate places.

 

[1robin]

Well, I am an automaton. I just have a huge number of possible states my "free" will cannot possibly trascend.

The definition of an automatic is not to have limits on choice but to have no choice at all.

So, do you think there is free will in Heaven?

I don't know. I am inclined to the theological definition of freewill is the capacity to chose what you will to select. In Heaven I may have choice but I would never will to choose evil or wrong. I may chose left or right but not to murder.

Isn't much simpler to postulate that God had nothing to do with it? After all many acts of genocide have been justified by saying "God wants it". So, why not this one? Because it is in the Bible?

I did not say God did not will it, I said it was no Genocide.

I think it is way more plausible than imagining a God that commands such things.

I could not imagine a righteous God that would not have to kill to preserve goodness in the sea of rebellion.

And, again, I never said he was Christian. Theim does not entail Christianity, necessariliy. For sure, he was not an atheist.

If you only suggest he was a theist then it has no relevance to me or this argument. He actually was an opportunist who used theism, mysticism, Tibetan mythology, social Darwinism, and Nietzscheism, etc..... to get what he wanted. I can't say about most but his actions many times were consistent with social Darwinism. The same is true of Obama though Obama is much more subtle and indirect. The only relevant point is that what he did is NOT in anyway justified by the Bible. Anything beyond this is another subject.

And who is taliking of Transparent Gods? I already know God is very transparent . I was talking of transparent flowers made of gold. If that makes sense for you, then it is ok.

That was a type-o. We were talking about transparent Gold which I spelled correctly several times, was not the one time I left out the l an obvious typing mistake?

I don't know. The Catholic church, maybe?

I don't get it.

I never said they are insincere. A lot of deluded people are totally sincere about their delusion. That is what delusion means. I recently had to debate that report of heaven issued by that neuroscientist in coma who wrote a book about it, after the coma. Probably the biggest joke of all.

I don't think your a qualified neuroscientist. I have read about the event sand shelved it under knowable. No one can disprove what he claimed and he is obviously qualified to intelligently discuss it but it goes way beyond him, there are now entire funded projects in universities and major medical institutions that are piling up evidence that so far has PROVEN that mind is more than the brain. I don't think they can prove heaven or hell with their methods but they at least show the brain is no the end. You ever read about the lady who had all the blood drained from here brain and yet described every action in the waiting room and that occurred outside the hospital? How about the guy in Africa who was not a believer and was dead for 3 days. He is one of those transparent gold sources. The kid who despite never knowing his grandfather and never seeing a picture of him described him as a child in perfect detail. The gang member who described Hell. I would and do rule out most, as mistakes or lies but when you try and rule out thousands you just come off like an emotionally motivated denier. I do not believe in UFO but I would never say all the claimers are faking it or deluded and unlike UFO there are no scientific reasons to exclude heaven or hell.

Don't you really find a possible alternative explanation? It is very easy to be fooled. Uri Geller managed to fool even many in the the scientific community, and he was insincere, so nobody is immune.

I find other explanations for almost all supernatural claims. However that leaves plenty that I can't. I look for corroboration, the principle of embarrassment, the lack of willingness to discuss them, the lack of seeking a profit, things like multiple sighting which rule out epilepsy and hallucinating, consistency over time. etc... Some survive every test I can think of.

Hope springs eternal, and people want to believe, with all their heart and against all odds. I once saw a live show about people talking with the deceased. It was really amazing until a professional magician/skeptic in the audience showed the tricks those charalatans were using. Who was the bad guy? The skeptic who killed the hope of all those people. That was illuminating.

Hoe may explain heaven but it doe snot explain hell and that is why I find accounts of Hell a little more certain that heaven.

By the way, assuming that they really saw heaven, how does it work? Do you think we can bypass free will and test God's existence by simply depriving brains of oxygen?

You seriously are not asking me to describe the dynamic of a supernatural experience are you? Is not knowing the mechanics evidence against something? I guess gravity is off the table then.

I was addressing Christianity and not theism in general. You seem to confuse the two things. And yes, if one puts the X on the spiritual force, whatever that is, and not on the existence of God, then she is not a Christian, or she cannot read.

No transcendent forces are far more consistent with transcendent realms and beings that materialistic atheism. You have switched back and forth in single posts so it would be no wonder if I sometimes can't figure out what your referring to. Your reference to Hitler is only relevant if Christian so of course that is what I assumed you meant. I did not assume you were intentionally irrelevant.

Where would you have put the X?

I can't remember the X reference.

Oh, I know. My son was also a disciple. Bury the movie in some cave for two thousands years and who knows? It might become the next holy movie, with disciples, witnesses and all the rest.

I have not seen too many Jedi's who for example were involved with making the movie who suffered lifetimes of oppressions and death defending the truth of the force. There is about a billion inequalities between Lucas and God.

May the farce be with you.

An atheist's power flows from the farce, it binds them, and surrounds them. Maybe no heaven but you can transform into the living farce if your good enough. I am joking of course. Did you ever notice Yoda said all living things have it, like rocks? Come on Lucas.

 

[Thief]

Yeah and storms go away when I say so.

The something from nothing argument pivots on the notion of creation.

I've heard there is only ONE Creator.

The rest of us draw life from 'IT'.

As for the Carpenter.....He seemed able to draw more than His own life.
You may have noticed....He took that ability with Him.

And if heaven has ability at all.....where is it now?
(probably allowed in heaven....not here)

 

[1robin]

Yeah and storms go away when I say so.

The something from nothing argument pivots on the notion of creation.

I've heard there is only ONE Creator.

The rest of us draw life from 'IT'.

As for the Carpenter.....He seemed able to draw more than His own life.
You may have noticed....He took that ability with Him.

And if heaven has ability at all.....where is it now?
(probably allowed in heaven....not here)

Heaven is a realm of perfection and God's active will. This broken mess of moral insanity is not compatible with heaven. Everything that gets to heaven must first be judged by God's refining fire, this world would not survive that process so this world and heaven are not the same place. Jesus said his kingdom was not of his Earth so I do not expect to find it here.

 

[viole]

Semiotics or codes are not juts complexity but specified complexity given a purpose. Nature does not have a purpose and is not intentional. Any old complexity will do in nature, but in codes specified complexity is necessary. Nature ...

Well, i could actually say that behind each mind there is a code, for we do not know af any mind that does not originate from a code. Ever.

So, I think you are arbitrarily putting minds before codes.

Of course nature can be random, that is my point. Nature can make very simplistic and short patterns but it will ....

Yes, but in evolution randomness is the only source of new information we know of. Without it, you would have pretty boring forms of life, if any. Most of this new information is thrown away, while some will be selected and will remain. This is basically how you add or change the code without any (conscious) coder.

You are really missing the point. It is not the length it is the information in the code, the intent of the information, and the ability to decode it on the other end.

I would not confuse information with intent of the information. Usually, the most random string of bytes contains more information than any string with "intent". This is theory of information 101, really. This is also why you can zip a file containing sonets reducing thereby its size considerably. This is because the sonet contains a lot of useless characters.

You can't gain any reduction in size by compressing a perfectly random string, because every character is important. You cannot deduce it statistcally from the rest of the string. Its information content is higher.

Information is a physical thing and it is equivalent to entropy. You can maesure it in energy/temperature if you want.

I know we don't, but I have heard constantly the use of the cell as the first life. It is not my claim but that of biologists used in almost ever debate ....

Yes, but this code could have been extremely simple. The rest of the complexity does not need a coder. Selection of inheritable random mutations, as usual.

The greatest Christian apologists on the scene these days grant evolution 100%. I do not really care what the hick from the backwaters of the Mississippi is told by a preacher who has a ....

So, we agree that humans come from fish. Good. Therefore, if the Bible anticipated evolution, then humans and fish belong to the same kind. Correct?

And we agree that the natural selection of inheritable random mutations is able to expand and create new persistent, cumulative codes without a coder. Equally good.

You see? I am not sure that all these apologists did their homework when they think that evolution is compatible with a God who knows what He does. Einstein would say that He plays dice.

In over 40 years of contests I have won exactly 1. A brand new bicycle which got ran over by the wood truck the next day.

In perspective, you are a lucky guy. Your old melon could have shared the same fate of your bycicle.

It is perfectly coherent. God is a moral agent who created moral agents with the apprehension of a moral realm which is found in his nature. Where is the incoherency? I have seen no believers with opposite moral vies but that is not what I am talking about. I am not talking about whether abortion is murder or not, I am talking about if murder can be true ....

Yes, but notice how much we agree when we consider things that are immediately related with our survival (or our genes survival). Murder, raping, stealing resources, killing and torturing crying babies, etc.

And how much you guys disagree with things like the death penalty, hell, weapons, Obama, social security, economic Darwinism, etc.

From my naturalistic point of view, this disagreements are expected. What is not expected is that you have them when you allegedely have personal relationships with this moral giver. Why don't you ask Him?

If you imagine God as a radio tower spitting out a signal and we the receivers our flawed equipment causes static on the signal as well as interference from other entities around us and our unwillingness to listen intently. A Christian is not a perfect person but one who is saved in spite of being flawed. Most are undisciplined and rebellious so we not perceive the signal with clarity. We all have a personal relationship with many things we disagree on aspects of.

Aspects of it? All you have to do is ask: dear God, is the death penaly ok? Is Hell eternal torment? [yes/no]. If God manages to create complex codes, i am sure He is able to transmit one bit of information.

If you cannot agree on even such a simple answer, how do you expect to convince the skeptics that you really have a personal relationship with God? It relly looks like you are talking to yourself and agree with yourself. Those personal relationships tell us more about your political views than the nature of God, obviously.

Depends how you define knowledge.

I know that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. I am not dead sure about it.

What is true today (especially in only parts of the world today) is irrelevant. In a society that kills lives in the word by the millions balking at what the person who hurt a servant was penalized with is a little hypocritical. What about "today" is morally exceptional? It isn't teen pregnancy, gambling debts, the parent per child ration, the lack of war, the lack of violence, drug abuse, gang activity, etc.... The only today proves is that we do not get better over time. We get worse.

Who cares? You make it sound like we are competing with God concerning moral issues. Even if I take a gun and shoot the first person I see, I will still be entitled to criticize God behavior, for I am a fallble human and the flawless moral record cannot be expected from me. But from Him.

By the way, do you really think we are getting worse? If you could get a one way ticket to 1,000 years ago, would you use it?

The master had already paid that man's debt and even if he could not work for 5 of the 6 years he was still set free after receiving a home, possibly land, food, and what medical care was available. In many cases he was given a separation allotment and could move to any tribal region in Israel. Not even the Jews could do that.

Nope. Owning a human being is wrong, if you believe in objective morality, period. Unless you think that model is viable today. And instead of performing useless miracles and cursing trees, Jesus could have said exactly that, looking thereby more divine.

Social organization, Zeitgeist, culture, etc. should not be used as an excuse to tolerate slavery and the controlled beating of slaves. Unless you are a moral relativist, after all. And if this creates problems with someone who likes to be owned, for economical reasons, so be it.

I am skeptical. If true why is it secularists so passionately defend what causes them this pain?

In order to reduce the pain, maybe?

So are to write laws based on a multi-meter? I think Murder is wrong, you think is above the accepted voltage level.

Yes, like a migrain. I don't like that either.

No, I hold it as both. It is false and it is depressing it is still believed though false.

I know what you believe. But you will find it difficult to find a defeater of my worldview. Even if you suffered from the naturalistic fallacy you will find it difficult to provide evidence that we are doing something wrong, since we are 7 billions and counting.

No, the secular side says it is ok to kill the baby on one day but not the next, based on what? The Christian says we do not know when it would be ok to terminate a pregnancy and so we err on the side of life, abortionists say we do not know yet we will err on the side of death (massive death greater than all the world wars). That is depressing and moral insanity.

Again...7 billions and counting. Extinctions does not seem to be imminent, if not because of overpopulation.

But I see your point. Abortion is not simple, and this is why we invest a lot in sexual education and unwanted pregnancy prevention. Maybe you should ask yourself why you have more instances of those in the Bible belt than in Norway, and act rationally according to the data (and human nature).

Let's set some parameters here. Do you find the usage of the day-after pill acceptable? Catholics are struggling with it; what do you think?

I did not mean hope it's self, for by it's self hope alone is hopeless. I meant the justifications for hope. God is the only possible eternal hope. We do not know (generally) if he exists yet I still have hope he does, non-theists don't know yet reject hope without knowing.

We reject useless hope, I am sorry. I reject hope in things that have no evidence whatsoever that could justify that hope.

You don't know He exists, obviously. And you don't know, if He exists, that you caught the true one. You only hope what you have learned to hope.

Your still confusing the source with the act of hoping. Partially my fault I should have said we should give faith every chance we can so as to have hope. Hope has a basis, your world view annihilates it.

Yes, it utterly annihilates it. But is that really so bad? And is it really so difficult to appreciate life and give purpose to it without that hope? Should I not be happy when I receive a beautiful flower because I perfectly know that in a couple of days it will land in the trash bean?

Maybe we should learn from really sick people who enjoy every day they manage to survive.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

Quality.

You're welcome.

 

[1robin]

Well, i could actually say that behind each mind there is a code, for we do not know af any mind that does not originate from a code. Ever.

There is a world of assumption in that statement. It appears you equate minds with brains which is problematic and not how modern science is trending.

So, I think you are arbitrarily putting minds before codes.

It is a problem either way. As usual Christianity gets you out of the paradox without any inconsistency. Codes require intent, intent requires minds. That is consistent with every observation and principle known. You add that minds require brains, and brains require codes which leaves you with the desire to get very drunk in response to unless you have a bible. It posits a mind that does not require a brain or codes by which intent is present and so natural codes can originate in it to construct brains which may or may not be minds. You have a paradox, I have a theory that resolves it. Don't make it true but when it solves a thousand paradoxes it starts to look necessary and true.

Yes, but in evolution randomness is the only source of new information we know of. Without it, you would have pretty boring forms of life, if any. Most of this new information is thrown away, while some will be selected and will remain. This is basically how you add or change the code without any (conscious) coder.

Right. on evolution alone, even evolution has no explanation. This is why even evolutions consider evolution a miracle and a result not an explanation. I can't get into the rest of what you said above without opening up a biological discussion which is too dang boring to risk.

I would not confuse information with intent of the information. Usually, the most random string of bytes contains more information than any string with "intent". This is theory of information 101, really. This is also why you can zip a file containing sonets reducing thereby its size considerably. This is because the sonet contains a lot of useless characters.

Not really because information is use specific. For example me reading shake spear in English would not be information unless I had an English audience. Information is tuned for purpose through a decoder. If you digitize and then convert that to alpha symbols the radio intensity from stars you may have billions of letters but no information, that is why those letters are called noise but letters tuned to a decoder or with useful patterns is not noise. NTW zip files are not natural entities they require intelligence at every level. Sonets only have meaning because they have purpose, they only have purpose because an intentional agent has tuned them for it. Zip files are short hand not naturally generated information. Bill gates took one look at a DNA code and said it was exactly like a computer code only much more sophisticated and if he does not know the difference none of us do.

You can't gain any reduction in size by compressing a perfectly random string, because every character is important. You cannot deduce it statistcally from the rest of the string. Its information content is higher.

A random code has no significant members unless randomness it's self was the goal in which case and data would do. Randomness is an illusion anyway, nothing is random, you can't even build a truly random generator of anything. But we are talking about specificity anyway.

Information is a physical thing and it is equivalent to entropy. You can maesure it in energy/temperature if you want.

You can convert measurement into information or interpret it that way but it is not inherent to it. Temperature for example means nothing without a thermometer and thermometers mean nothing without minds to interpret and standardize them. IOW 2 digress means nothing unless put to a use within a format. The sun never produced a legible sentence in any language. It is all noise without a tuned filter to turn it into useful information.

Yes, but this code could have been extremely simple. The rest of the complexity does not need a coder. Selection of inheritable random mutations, as usual.

Imagine the first cell. Since 99.9999999 plus % of random mutations are fatal how would you even get another unique cell or the trillions of advances. Information in nature breaks down at vastly higher rates that it produces useful combinations. For example take the chemical arrangements just to get a protein. The probability that correct arrangements come apart are almost infinite to them staying together until all he pieces are together. The best example I have heard o is puzzle pieces in a bag. Shake it up, you might occasionally get two or three that fit together that will go together but you will never get a hundred or a billion because the chances the fall apart are vastly greater than they stay together and keep forming. Your cheating for evolution. First you need a universe from nothing (chances = zero), then you need a very specific structured universe for evolution of any kind to even have a chance (chances = 1 in billions of trillions), then you need even more specificity to allow stars and galaxies, then chemical evolution, ten life, etc..... Keep in mind his only applies to Godless evolution. Given God you can easily get all these necessities which is why it is virtually a miracle to begin with. Its like claiming machines are natural because you started with an assembly line. I am trying to stay out of biology but it just keeps getting worse even if included.

My Lord this thing became here posts long. It's your fault.

 

[1robin]

So, we agree that humans come from fish. Good. Therefore, if the Bible anticipated evolution, then humans and fish belong to the same kind. Correct?

Nope. I do not agree that humans came from fish. I do not think there is even the beginning of enough evidence to justify that. I said the bible's kinds are most often thought to be defined as fertile populations. Dogs, cats, etc.... I have never tried but I don't think I can breed with a whale shark, have you attempted it.

And we agree that the natural selection of inheritable random mutations is able to expand and create new persistent, cumulative codes without a coder. Equally good.

You take any concessions and just run with it. I said the bible agrees that evolution occurred not that evolutionary theory is all true. It limits evolution, the theory does not, it traces it's source to mind, the theory does not. The theory is almost absurdly false which is why it so radically morphs every decade or so. I think nature can rearrange existing codes. I have no reason to think it can produce them and little to think it can effective build on them. But even if it could it would be practically miraculous as virtually nothing else acts this way naturally. Every new atoms requires intelligence and they are basically codes. Computers don't act like hat, machines don't. Someone asked an evolutionist if he could name any other natural system hat increased in specified complexity over time without intelligence, he said aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, evolution.

Y

ou see? I am not sure that all these apologists did their homework when they think that evolution is compatible with a God who knows what He does. Einstein would say that He plays dice.

That is not what they are saying. They don't think Darwin as a whole is compatible but elements of it were in the bible thousands of years before he was born. We believe dogs produce other dogs, maybe bigger ones, smaller ones, ugly ones and cute ones. Guess what that is all hat anyone has ever seen occur. Even when trying to accelerate it intentionally he fruit flys remained flys, and never became lizards or anything but flys. Germs remained germs, life only came from life no matter how hard we tried to force it to do otherwise we miserably failed. Don't worry reality has little effect on the theory however.

In perspective, you are a lucky guy. Your old melon could have shared the same fate of your bycicle.

The wood truck might become merciful if I keep obeying thermodynamics as I have in the past. I am proof positive that biological systems deteriorate over time just as every thing else does.

Yes, but notice how much we agree when we consider things that are immediately related with our survival (or our genes survival). Murder, raping, stealing resources, killing and torturing crying babies, etc.

First only with God do our genes have any actual value so he would obviously be interested in them remaining in tact. Second you will never convince me any mother in human history jumped into the water to save here genes. She had no idea what they were in most cases to begin with. That is a preference in search of justification. If evolution were true then I should want to and would be perfectly justified in killing every human on Earth who did not benefit my tribe. In fact it would produce tribal based racism, speciesm, and the destruction of the infirm which Christianity prohibits. There is a reasons no nation and no person acts as if evolution is the basis for morality. Be careful what you wish for.

And how much you guys disagree with things like the death penalty, hell, weapons, Obama, social security, economic Darwinism, etc.

I don't get the point. Obama sucks, economics is the greatest cause of immorality I can think of, Christians are not against the death penalty, nor social security. But we are against the death penalty for babies and using social security to buy votes.

From my naturalistic point of view, this disagreements are expected. What is not expected is that you have them when you allegedely have personal relationships with this moral giver. Why don't you ask Him?

Ask him what, you have lost me? Half that stuff was not even accurate and the rest needs clarification.

Aspects of it? All you have to do is ask: dear God, is the death penaly ok? Is Hell eternal torment? [yes/no]. If God manages to create complex codes, i am sure He is able to transmit one bit of information.

He already said the death penalty was ok. He already said that hell would be thrown into the pit and destroyed forever. I am not sure you understand what you deny. Almost nothing in the past few statements has been true or accurate.

If you cannot agree on even such a simple answer, how do you expect to convince the skeptics that you really have a personal relationship with God? It relly looks like you are talking to yourself and agree with yourself. Those personal relationships tell us more about your political views than the nature of God, obviously.

Still lost. I have simple answers to your bizarre questions. I have long ago concluded people in a forum are mostly convinced of a position and are only here to declare it, no one on either side ever concedes anything but the slightest issue. I am required to give the truth as best as I can know it, not to be responsible with the results. I am to lead to water and then be content with that, I also attempt to make available reasonable responses to new Christians who do not have them. Mainly I am killing time in the most positive manner I can think of. I gave up on politics a while back, I don't think either side will do what is necessary pull us back from Armageddon and the bible gives no hope in politics of any kind but condemns them all to eventual collapse so not my meeting Christ was not a vote on my part. Let me give you a hint. Never guess at motivation without virtually proof. You have no access to it but the one your throwing it at is the worlds best expert on it. I can know your wrong without any hope of you ever knowing your right and if you are it is a needless risk to your credibility.

I know that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. I am not dead sure about it.

Have you measured it? No, then it is faith based. It is subjective what knowledge is and can either be an intuition or only that I think. I don't care as long as you apply it consistently.

Who cares? You make it sound like we are competing with God concerning moral issues. Even if I take a gun and shoot the first person I see, I will still be entitled to criticize God behavior, for I am a fallble human and the flawless moral record cannot be expected from me. But from Him.

NO it was pointing out the obvious lack of qualifications we have to split moral hairs with a perfect being with infinite knowledge. It is infinitely worse than a mentally handicapped, 3 year old, mass murderer judging Simon Greenleaf's treatise on evidence as it concerns ancient documents. It is just plain silly. Charley Manson's retriever would be far more qualified to debate time with Leibniz. Criticize to you are blue in the face but it will not matter until you can rationally justify it.

By the way, do you really think we are getting worse? If you could get a one way ticket to 1,000 years ago, would you use it?

If I could take an a/c unit and my microwave I would be very tempted. Do you consider near Nuclear holocaust compensation for cell phones? I imagine your compensating for moral decline with possible technological advancement.


Continued AGAINNNNNNN:

 

[1robin]

Nope. Owning a human being is wrong, if you believe in objective morality, period. Unless you think that model is viable today. And instead of performing useless miracles and cursing trees, Jesus could have said exactly that, looking thereby more divine.

So why do you reject the only objective basis for the equality of man and his sovereignty. Evolution has never made two equal things, ever. It is funny how no one acts as if evolution is true except in theory. You, and every non psycho path acts as if morals are transcendent. Look at any national emergency you never ever hear social Darwinist motivations to deal with it but wall to wall objective moral foundations. God has a passive will and an active one. IOW some things are limited by the capacity of humanity. He does not like divorce, slavery, war death, etc.... but recognizes we cannot rise above them at times or at least cannot render them unnecessary. If God likes any of those why are there none in heaven, why does he rail against them but reluctantly allow them, why did he give everything to over come them? His actions are perfectly consistent with reluctant necessity for a time and perfectly inconsistent with desirability of them at any time.

Social organization, Zeitgeist, culture, etc. should not be used as an excuse to tolerate slavery and the controlled beating of slaves. Unless you are a moral relativist, after all. And if this creates problems with someone who likes to be owned, for economical reasons, so be it.

Again how are you in any way qualified to dictate what God finds justifiable or necessary given purpose, etc.... It is not that your wrong, it is that you have no basis for being right. I 6month old might as well tell Newton he should not carry the 2. What is obvious is that given the context of purpose and method God's actions are extremely consistent. Debating what his methods should be is just useless. For example I am consistent in saying I personally reject Allah for many reasons but I cannot say that if he exists he is wrong. I don't like him but I have no basis to declare him wrong, wrong compared to what?

In order to reduce the pain, maybe?

I have lost the context for this.

Yes, like a migrain. I don't like that either.

I don't see the relevance.

I know what you believe. But you will find it difficult to find a defeater of my worldview. Even if you suffered from the naturalistic fallacy you will find it difficult to provide evidence that we are doing something wrong, since we are 7 billions and counting.

Don't get this answer either. How many people is enough? At what number was anything a success? This would mean that whatever arbitrary number is successful less one is a failure. Failure of what? Is it a successful in we only hade one less abortion than birth? What are you talking about? Millions of dead lives for nothing but convenience is not a success of anything but mass murder.

Again...7 billions and counting. Extinctions does not seem to be imminent, if not because of overpopulation.

What? Who are you and where is viole? We have been twice on the very edge of self extermination just in the 50 years since we invented it. How can things get any worse and anyone still live to learn from it?

But I see your point. Abortion is not simple, and this is why we invest a lot in sexual education and unwanted pregnancy prevention. Maybe you should ask yourself why you have more instances of those in the Bible belt than in Norway, and act rationally according to the data (and human nature).

Even if every Christina who ever lived had one that is irrelevant in this context. Humans are known to be fallible but we can have honorable principles even if we violate them. However if we start valuing death as justified by convenience then no hope is left. It never ever fails, for every ontological Christian point there is an unequal but opposite epistemological response which has nothing to do with it.

Let's set some parameters here. Do you find the usage of the day-after pill acceptable? Catholics are struggling with it; what do you think?

No, I might suggest someone use it (I doubt it), but I think it in principle is wrong. However my point was not that abortion at any time is wrong but that if abortion at any time was hen since we have no way what so ever to know what that time is lets err for life.

We reject useless hope, I am sorry. I reject hope in things that have no evidence whatsoever that could justify that hope.

That is a lot of wrong in one sentence.

1. It is not useless even if wrong.
2. There is enough evidence (an embarrassment of it) that experts in every relevant field have believed it enough to dedicate their lives to in huge numbers.
3. You hope in things you have n little or no evidence for constantly. You hope we can hope this earth survives us with every indication it won't. That is not only not consistent with evidence it is useless hope even if true in your case and mine.

You don't know He exists, obviously. And you don't know, if He exists, that you caught the true one. You only hope what you have learned to hope.

I did not catch anything. I can know he is the true one and the only one unless you know exactly what I know and that I don't. There is a lot of assumption in your conclusions. If the supernatural exists (and you can't know it does not) I can potentially have perfect certainty. I don't, but you would not know either way. Just guessing I would say I have 98% certainty compared with anything else I think I know.

Yes, it utterly annihilates it. But is that really so bad? And is it really so difficult to appreciate life and give purpose to it without that hope? Should I not be happy when I receive a beautiful flower because I perfectly know that in a couple of days it will land in the trash bean?

Of course that is bad. That does not make it wrong but it certainly makes it bad comparatively. No matter what words you use about meaning, hope, etc.... there is only a net loss without God. Unless you knew, and you don't you should hold out hope.

Maybe we should learn from really sick people who enjoy every day they manage to survive.

I would rather learn from those who got well and lived for eternity if it is possible they exist. You can find meaningless in futility if you want. If hope is light I want more than enough to read by I want enough to see by. If your content with a dim reflection then have at it. Ravi says Christ did not come primarily to make sick people well he came to make dead people live. Sick people get well but die anyway, only in life is there hope. Only those who are dying think the God's are jealous, because they do not die. It is the arrogance and hubris of the damned, if you like. Man, that last part was good stuff, even if I typed it.