Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[viole]

1. Darwin was not the first to posit evolution. Long before him even a monk made a name for doing so. The bible did so thousands of years earlier.

Oh. But that goes even further in the past than your monk. Read what proto-naturalist Lucretius has to say in 50 BC in his De Rerum Naturae.

... (Atoms) moving randomly through space, like dust motes in a sunbeam, colliding, hooking together, forming complex structures, breaking apart again, in a ceaseless process of creation and destruction. There is no escape from this process. ... There is no master plan, no divine architect, no intelligent design.

All things, including the species to which you belong, have evolved over vast stretches of time. The evolution is random, though in the case of living organisms, it involves a principle of natural selection. That is, species that are suited to survive and to reproduce successfully, endure, at least for a time; those that are not so well suited, die off quickly. But nothing — from our own species, to the planet on which we live, to the sun that lights our day — lasts forever. Only the atoms are immortal ...

A marvelous example of Jupiter/Zeus inspiring his people, again. That makes your Jehovah look like a rookie

2. The intuitive aspect of design in nature is so over whelming that I have never seen any evolutionist no matter how militantly atheistic who described it without constantly claiming design every few sentences. I am sure they officially denounce design yet it is so apparent their subconscious betrays them constantly.

This is wishful thinking, and you are not Freud. What they talk about is the illusion of design. The same illusion that makes people believe weird things.

But it is obvious that once you have viable and confirmed unconscious mechanisms that can create complexity, naturalism is fully justified.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No I do not and that is not what I said. I said if the bible said no evolution ever happened I could use that as a reason to believe it never took place. I said however that it does not (it in fact says the exact opposite 2500 years before Darwin). I find what the bible says and what the evidence justifies to be as usual, very close. That God operates by natural law in most cases but he supplies an agency explanation of natural law and suggests it has limits and he occasionally circumvents it. Miraculous intervention is a rare exception to natural law in the bible. I find natural law as a mechanistic explanation for most of genetic history but powerless to explain reality on rare occasion in exactly the same fashion.

The problem, of course, is that what the bible says has nothing to do with with what Darwin, and modern science, says.

1) evolution is restricted by kinds (Bible and Qran believers )
2) it is not (the rest)

I really wonder why you insist on this. We are clearly talking of two different beasts here.

And miracles do not exist. There is nil evidence of any miracle to have ever happened. The very existence of miracles would also say a lot about God's incompetence to foresee things. A true miracle would have been to cancel leprosy globally, malaria or children cancer instead of useless things like waliking on water, making sure that people at a wedding get drunk or taking off to Heaven leaving those poor buggers behind with their hopes of a better life in the kingdom and craving for a vindicating but missing in action comeback. What a waste of time and power.

Nevertheless, nice uplifting stories or rumors even if they have no substance, I am afraid. A bit childish, but cute. Good enough for a Hollywood movie.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No one knows what model applies to what with any certainty. I have seen evolutionists complain about the shifting models until what now resembles a forest has emerged. I have seen it applied to life in general or distinct species. I can't say they are right or wrong, the only thing I can say is they don't know and the trends are not in naturalism favor.

I think everyone pretty much agree that all of life has a tree, not a forest. If it were a forest, that would entail that life developed several times independently. Such a finding would be on the front page of all newspapers.

But you might know something that I don't. After all, I don't always read the papers. Do you have additional scientific information I can chew on?

Of course, when you are high up the tree you can have subtrees that look like a forest if you do not go farther back. Human evolution looks like that. There were human species which are not our direct ancestors.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I am suggesting exactly that. It does not take alot of imagination to realize that you might get leprosy by touching something touched by someone with leprosy.

Aapparently it does. Brilliant men of science thousands of years later coughed up the idea that leprosy was hereditary and that was proof the bible was wrong. The same with simply washing the saw between surgeries in 1860. You can't have it both ways. It was either so intuitive that stone age men knew it or it was so illusive that modern scientists got it wrong.

Without the idea of germs I can't think of a single reason to consider contamination at all. Kids who are not familiar with germs don't seem to get it.

If you notice that you might get sick by drinking water with a rotting corpse inside, you might easily come to the conclusion that death and sickness is not confined in the body. It is not a big deal. Simple cause effect deduction. I knew that as a child without being able to read Pasteur.

I did not mention any get the body out of the water prohibitions. You cannot object to causal abstracts with a causal obvious. You must show that seeing a current next to the 10 miles of shore you frequent is enough to prove that ocean currents in and under the sea extend for thousands of miles to continent you have never heard of and so subtle no body found them until more than a thousand years later.

The one thing that I really find puzzling of those ancient hebrews is that they postulated that all matter might be made of atoms, thousands years before science confirmed that. That was really remarkable.

Did I list that one? Can't remember. I find the air having weight one persuasive but it is more the total weight of them I can't dismiss.

Oh wait. Those were the greeks. They must have been inspired by Zeus, then

No, you were right the first time.

What is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3] - See more at: Scientific Facts in The Bible

It is not one of the best but it is still there. It can also be found in the Quran. Muhammad learned most of his general theology from a Christian uncle.

In Surah 99:7

"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!"

In Surah 99:8

"And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it."

Just out of curiosity can you quote Leucippus and/or Democritus on the atom?

 

[1robin]

He did not guess. He observed and deduced a theory. Like Newton. Newton was also wrong on many points. His theory is useless to explain things that occur in our solar system. You need relativity for that.

I like how a theory is a deduction when it is about evolution but even a deduction is not a deduction when about cosmology.

But this is really the best those guys could do with what they knew.

Their initial hypothesis is not as fractionally amazing as it's ability to stand up at least partially over time. As absurd as the idea of looking at a brain and thinking mutation is, it seems to have a logical basis. IT is so non-intuitive or anti-intuitive that despite the logic I expect it to come apart at any time. So far in general it hasn't. It is the most hyperbolically insane model I have ever seen that still worked.

Yes, he is is buried in the church were English kings and queens are crowned. He was also self declared agnostic. By your logic, agnosticism and the bible are not contradictory, either.

Of course not. Satanism and the bible are not contradictory. The intention and goal of the bible are neither but it both explains and predicts both.

But I see what you mean. He was not buried there for his agnosticism. But don't forget, he claimed what is still orthodoxy today. That there is a tree of life and humans come ultimately from bacteria-like creatures.

That is not orthodoxy today in my experience. Today it is a whole forest of trees that are rooted in theory. I could not speak to which holds sway today but the tree is long gone. It is either a quasi-bush thing or a forest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Aapparently it does. Brilliant men of science thousands of years later coughed up the idea that leprosy was hereditary and that was proof the bible was wrong. The same with simply washing the saw between surgeries in 1860. You can't have it both ways. It was either so intuitive that stone age men knew it or it was so illusive that modern scientists got it wrong.

Without the idea of germs I can't think of a single reason to consider contamination at all. Kids who are not familiar with germs don't seem to get it.

I did not mention any get the body out of the water prohibitions. You cannot object to causal abstracts with a causal obvious. You must show that seeing a current next to the 10 miles of shore you frequent is enough to prove that ocean currents in and under the sea extend for thousands of miles to continent you have never heard of and so subtle no body found them until more than a thousand years later.
Did I list that one? Can't remember. I find the air having weight one persuasive but it is more the total weight of them I can't dismiss.

No, you were right the first time.

What is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3] - See more at: Scientific Facts in The Bible

It is not one of the best but it is still there. It can also be found in the Quran. Muhammad learned most of his general theology from a Christian uncle.

In Surah 99:7

"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!"

In Surah 99:8

"And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it."

Just out of curiosity can you quote Leucippus and/or Democritus on the atom?

The Bible doesn't exactly say all that though, does it? What they actually wrote was much more vague:

Psalms 8:6-9

You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,

7
All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,

8
The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas.

9
O Lord, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth!

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+8:6-9&version=NKJV



I'm sorry but if that's the verse you're referring to, it's much less impressive than you make it out to be.

 

[1robin]

The Bible doesn't exactly say all that though, does it? What they actually wrote was much more vague:

Psalms 8:6-9

You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,

7
All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,

8
The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas.

9
O Lord, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth!

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+8:6-9&version=NKJV



I'm sorry but if that's the verse you're referring to, it's much less impressive than you make it out to be.

I did not recall the verse or apply it to anything, but lets see where I did get it from.


American naval officer and oceanographer Matthew Maury (1806-1873) was a Christian who loved reading his Bible. He also had no doubts about its accuracy. And these facts led him to some remarkable discoveries in science.


Maury entered the US Navy in 1825, but an accident in 1839 partially disabled him, so he left active sea duty. Three years later, still with the Navy, he was appointed superintendent of the US Naval Observatory in Washington, and also of the US Depot of Charts and Instruments.

Over the next 19 years Maury devoted himself to studying the winds, clouds, weather, and ocean features ... as well as the Bible. In his Bible studies, the words of Psalm 8 stuck in his mind: ‘ ... whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas’. Maury determined that if God’s Word said there were ‘paths’ in the seas, then there must be paths. So he set out to find them.

He studied old ships’ logs. From these he compiled charts of ocean-wind and sea currents. To study the speed and direction of the ocean currents Maury set adrift weighted bottles known as ‘drift bottles’. These floated slightly below the surface of the water, and thus were not affected by wind. Instructions were sealed in each bottle directing anyone who found one washed ashore to return it. From the location and date on which the bottles were found, Maury was able to develop his charts of the ocean currents—the ‘paths’ of the seas—which greatly aided the science of marine navigation.

In 1855, Maury wrote the first textbook on modern oceanography, The Physical Geography of the Sea and Its Meteorology. In this work, Maury presented oceanography from a delightfully Christian view. He included Biblical passages of meteorological and other scientific importance, such as the Scripture quote from the book of Job (28:25) which refers to God’s making ‘the weight for the winds’. He explained the Biblical statement this way:


‘. . though the fact that the air has weight is here so distantly announced [in Job], philosophers never recognized the fact until within comparatively a recent period, and then it was proclaimed by them as a great discovery. Nevertheless, the fact was set forth as distinctly in the book of nature as it is in the book of revelation; for the infant, in availing itself of atmospherically pressure to draw milk from its mother’s breast, unconsciously proclaimed it.’

Maury subsequently prepared charts of the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean between the United States and Europe, which showed the practicability of laying undersea cables. Maury died in 1873. He was elected to the Hall of Fame for Great Americans. A monument erected in his honor on Monument Avenue, Richmond, Virginia, reads: ‘Matthew Fontaine Maury, Pathfinder of the Seas, the genius who first snatched from the oceans and atmosphere the secret of their laws. His inspiration, Holy Writ, Psalm 8:8; Ecclesiastes 1:6.’

It is often claimed that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Yet the Bible’s accuracy when touching on scientific subjects has led many great scientists, including Matthew Maury, to some outstanding scientific discoveries.
Matthew Fontaine Maury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Matthew Fontaine Maury "Pathfinder Of Sea" Psalms 8
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/matthew-maurys-search-for-the-secret-of-the-seas/

Fra from being an argument against the inspiration of the verse or the OTHERS involved it is an argument for the inspiration for the interpretation of the verses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did not recall the verse or apply it to anything, but lets see where I did get it from.
American naval officer and oceanographer Matthew Maury (1806-1873) was a Christian who loved reading his Bible. He also had no doubts about its accuracy. And these facts led him to some remarkable discoveries in science.
Maury entered the US Navy in 1825, but an accident in 1839 partially disabled him, so he left active sea duty. Three years later, still with the Navy, he was appointed superintendent of the US Naval Observatory in Washington, and also of the US Depot of Charts and Instruments.
Over the next 19 years Maury devoted himself to studying the winds, clouds, weather, and ocean features ... as well as the Bible. In his Bible studies, the words of Psalm 8 stuck in his mind: ‘ ... whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas’. Maury determined that if God’s Word said there were ‘paths’ in the seas, then there must be paths. So he set out to find them.
He studied old ships’ logs. From these he compiled charts of ocean-wind and sea currents. To study the speed and direction of the ocean currents Maury set adrift weighted bottles known as ‘drift bottles’. These floated slightly below the surface of the water, and thus were not affected by wind. Instructions were sealed in each bottle directing anyone who found one washed ashore to return it. From the location and date on which the bottles were found, Maury was able to develop his charts of the ocean currents—the ‘paths’ of the seas—which greatly aided the science of marine navigation.
In 1855, Maury wrote the first textbook on modern oceanography, The Physical Geography of the Sea and Its Meteorology. In this work, Maury presented oceanography from a delightfully Christian view. He included Biblical passages of meteorological and other scientific importance, such as the Scripture quote from the book of Job (28:25) which refers to God’s making ‘the weight for the winds’. He explained the Biblical statement this way:
‘. . though the fact that the air has weight is here so distantly announced [in Job], philosophers never recognized the fact until within comparatively a recent period, and then it was proclaimed by them as a great discovery. Nevertheless, the fact was set forth as distinctly in the book of nature as it is in the book of revelation; for the infant, in availing itself of atmospherically pressure to draw milk from its mother’s breast, unconsciously proclaimed it.’
Maury subsequently prepared charts of the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean between the United States and Europe, which showed the practicability of laying undersea cables. Maury died in 1873. He was elected to the Hall of Fame for Great Americans. A monument erected in his honor on Monument Avenue, Richmond, Virginia, reads: ‘Matthew Fontaine Maury, Pathfinder of the Seas, the genius who first snatched from the oceans and atmosphere the secret of their laws. His inspiration, Holy Writ, Psalm 8:8; Ecclesiastes 1:6.’
It is often claimed that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Yet the Bible’s accuracy when touching on scientific subjects has led many great scientists, including Matthew Maury, to some outstanding scientific discoveries.
Matthew Fontaine Maury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Matthew Fontaine Maury "Pathfinder Of Sea" Psalms 8
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/matthew-maurys-search-for-the-secret-of-the-seas/

I asked you to provide the verse you were referring to, and instead you quoted something about Matthew Maury, as you’ve done here (though I think it was a different quote). So I guessed that the verse you were referring to was the one he apparently found inspiration from – that being the one about the paths of the seas.

Fra from being an argument against the inspiration of the verse or the OTHERS involved it is an argument for the inspiration for the interpretation of the verses.

The other verses being the following:

Job 28:23-26
God understands the way to it
and he alone knows where it dwells,
24 for he views the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.
25 When he established the force of the wind
and measured out the waters,
26 when he made a decree for the rain
and a path for the thunderstorm
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+28:23-26&version=NIV

Ecclesiastes 1:6
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1:6&version=KJV

I’m sorry, but I still fail to see where divine inspiration would have been required for Bronze age people to make such vague observations. Could you explain why divine inspiration would be necessary?

I mean, seriously, you can stand on a sea shore and figure out that there are currents in the ocean.

Are you trying to use “paths of the seas” to determine that they knew every detail about ocean currents long before anyone else did? Are you not implying that Maury only rediscovered thousands of years later, what the people of the Bible already knew? How do you get from “paths of the seas” to “ocean currents in and under the sea extend for thousands of miles to continent you have never heard of”? And it sounds like Maury had to do a lot more than simply read a couple of Bible verses (like studying ship’s logs and carrying out experiments) to accurately chart ocean currents as he did.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..And miracles do not exist..

So are we to assume that if a family member of yours was critically ill and dying, you wouldn't pray for a miracle?..

 

[Ingledsva]

So are we to assume that if a family member of yours was critically ill and dying, you wouldn't pray for a miracle?..

That is correct. I would get them the best medical help available, and if that isn't working, the newest scientific drug trials.


*

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Shuttlecraft posted:So are we to assume that if a family member of yours was critically ill and dying, you wouldn't pray for a miracle?

That is correct. I would get them the best medical help available, and if that isn't working, the newest scientific drug trials..

But surely you've nothing to lose by saying a little prayer too?
Remember, Jesus said we have the power to move mountains by belief, so surely it's worth a try?

 

[Ingledsva]

But surely you've nothing to lose by saying a little prayer too?
Remember, Jesus said we have the power to move mountains by belief, so surely it's worth a try?

Why would I pray to an invisible being that I don't believe exists?


This is the same as me asking you, why don't you say a little prayer to Flying Spaghetti Monster?



*

 

[viole]

So are we to assume that if a family member of yours was critically ill and dying, you wouldn't pray for a miracle?..

Nope. I don't do things like knocking on wood for good luck nor dancing around a fire for rain, either.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No, you were right the first time.

What is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3] - See more at: Scientific Facts in The Bible

So, saying that all visible things are made of invisible things anticipate atomic theory? I don't see how. For what we know they might have meant invisible angels or some other spiritual entity. Surely atoms is not the first thing I would think of if I heard that. And if they really meant atom, why not saying it instead of being so mysterious?

I don't think so. For srarters, atomism is actually falsifiable whereas the existence of invisible things is not. For even if we had not found anything, you could still say that this is because they are, well, invisible. So, they were not even wrong.

It is not one of the best but it is still there.

Still much better than the one where they equivocate between a circle and a sphere

It can also be found in the Quran. Muhammad learned most of his general theology from a Christian uncle.

In Surah 99:7

"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!"

In Surah 99:8

"And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it."

Sure. Because atomism predates Muhammad's uncle by several centuries. That could also explain why we don't have:

And anyone who has done an invisible thing's weight of evil, shall see it."

which sounds pretty funny.

Just out of curiosity can you quote Leucippus and/or Democritus on the atom?

Sure.

ἐτεῆι δ' ἄτομα καὶ κενόν - Democritus


Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Afapparently it does. Brilliant men of science thousands of years later coughed up the idea that leprosy was hereditary and that was proof the bible was wrong.

Are you aware of any illness marked as hereditary by the Bible? Apart from sin, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Remember, Jesus said we have the power to move mountains by belief, so surely it's worth a try?

So, if you believe, could you please try to move mount Everest to Nevada?

I am sure it is worth a try. Imagine how many people souls you will save if you are successful...,including mine.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Why would I pray to an invisible being that I don't believe exists?


This is the same as me asking you, why don't you say a little prayer to Flying Spaghetti Monster?



*

No it is not. No FSM inspired 750,000 word texts scrutinized over more than any other work in history. No FSM prophesies. No FSM unknowable knowledge. NO museums full of artifacts the FSM said existed when scholars said they did not, and no hordes of hundreds of millions of our best and brightest have faith in the FSM.

Until it has at least one or more it is only cheap liberal theatrics.

 

[1robin]

So, saying that all visible things are made of invisible things anticipate atomic theory? I don't see how. For what we know they might have meant invisible angels or some other spiritual entity. Surely atoms is not the first thing I would think of if I heard that. And if they really meant atom, why not saying it instead of being so mysterious?

It certainly suggests it. I would allow another spiritual explanation but until confirmed atomic building blocks are the best explanation. I am not sure if they even had word for an atomic structure. Why need the word until you had the concept? It is a strong maybe, I don't know and rarely use it.

I don't think so. For srarters, atomism is actually falsifiable whereas the existence of invisible things is not. For even if we had not found anything, you could still say that this is because they are, well, invisible. So, they were not even wrong.

Neither were when they stated it, and the falsifiable criteria was way way off in the future. That is like that weird idea that answers are only answers if they allow science to do something. Truth does not care about standards. It just be and stuff.

Still much better than the one where they equivocate between a circle and a sphere

That one is weak until you dig a bit. You find verse about the horizon being crescent shaped from any vantage point. You won't have that without a sphere. The problem was Hebrew had no good word for large sphere at the time.

Sure. Because atomism predates Muhammad's uncle by several centuries. That could also explain why we don't have:

And anyone who has done an invisible thing's weight of evil, shall see it."

which sounds pretty funny.

That would have been funny if written that way. I knew about the date fro the atom but Muhammad and was far from a physicist could not even read so threw it in there anyway.

Sure.

ἐτεῆι δ' ἄτομα καὶ κενόν - Democritus

I am not Greek, they revoked my membership when I said I hated humus and soccer. In broken English at least, please. I tell you what though, any nation which had Spartans in it must be taken seriously.

 

[viole]

That is not orthodoxy today in my experience. Today it is a whole forest of trees that are rooted in theory. I could not speak to which holds sway today but the tree is long gone. It is either a quasi-bush thing or a forest.

Your experience? I am sure it is important, but when it comes to such claims, not so much. In my experience Christianity is vanishing, but I am sure you will not be content with that.

So, were is your evidence that scientists abandoned the common descent paradigm for all life? I hope you indulge me if I am skeptical about articles in Christian Science or other magazines with similar oxymoronic names.

Cio

- viole

 

[1robin]

Are you aware of any illness marked as hereditary by the Bible? Apart from sin, of course.

Ciao

- viole

Not from memory but I am not an OT specialists. I have read it several times but as it composes no foundation for my core faith it serves as only commentary and general background to me. Why do you ask?

I thought of one maybe, Gigantism.