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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are the labels placed on concepts by faulty men capable of making them true? Creation is a hypothesis and a theory and has been far far longer than evolution. Those same faulty 'scientists" application of the term planet to Pluto sure did nothing to actually make it one. I do not share you faith in man's omniscience.

The definition of the term "planet" - which was a human-created classification to begin with - changed slightly when the term "dwarf planet" was introduced. You might as well argue thatthose "faulty" geographers got their maps wrong by putting the USSR on it for all those years. After all, we can see there's no USSR now, right?

 

[1robin]

Sorry but I don't see any evidence for what you are saying
You state what you believe is Gods plan. Others have stated other ideas. You state things as a given then state what necessarily happens because of that plan.

The Garden(if literal) could have been the place for man to learn and grow with God.

Evil that man does to man is bad enough but when children through no fault of their own suffer then I fail to see this as a perfect plan. I know you don't believe I am capable of judging this but it seems to me that children suffering should nt be necessary for man to grow

Whether you see the evidence or not is not really the important point in this context. I believe there are mountains of evidence for what I claimed but that is not really the issue. The question was if evil occurs and God does not prevent it is he evil? My Biblical explanation of the purposes of evil and of God, what that means concerning the suffering and misery we all see and hate, and why a good God may have morally justified reasons for allowing it answers the question. The Bible answers the question and nothing does I t leave out necessary to explain it. If you wish to go on and attempt to demonstrate what I said is justified by evidence I can do so but that was not the question the thread asked.

To answer you objections.

1. Of course I assume my God exists I have experienced him.

2. I did not assume that Bible lays out what I posted it actually does.
I believe the person who made the thread believes in the God I do and so that is why I offered what the Bible says about evil. That part is fact not assumption.

3. All the necessities logically follow from the Biblical explanation of evil. I do not see any that do not directly follow from initial conditions.

4. What the Garden actual was makes little difference. Whether analogy or literal something went dreadfully wrong with man.

5. You last statement is exactly what I thought was going on from the beginning. You are objecting to a philosophical explanation based on an emotion dislike. What I gave is a perfect explanation why evil may be permitted to exist in a world where a good God exists. Saying we hate it does not change the explanatory power of what I posted.

I hate evil as well but that explanation at least allowed me to put it in context and assign blame where it is due. If that did not satisfy you nothing ever will because that is the best explanation possible. I would not suggest you deny the remedy because of the problem. Without God you still have the evil but no explanation, no reason, and no cure.

 

[1robin]

"and then there are fossils..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcJvkAdydnQ



Pluto? PLUTO!!!

What a strange post.

Are you suggesting:

1. That you know every detail concerning the theory of creation I agree with (which by the way I did not even say I did).
2. Are you suggesting that creation posits being that never die and so leave no fossils?
3. Are you suggesting creation leaves no role for evolution?

You seem to typing random words and posting them so you have some splainen to do?

 

[1robin]

The definition of the term "planet" - which was a human-created classification to begin with

You have just confirmed the basis for just about everything I said.

changed slightly when the term "dwarf planet" was introduced. You might as well argue thatthose "faulty" geographers got their maps wrong by putting the USSR on it for all those years. After all, we can see there's no USSR now, right?

I might know more about the history of Pluto's name than you (but maybe not). Dwarf planet classification was created because a whole bunch of near Pluto sized objects were found and for some reason it was decided that we could only be allowed to have a certain number of planets with the title planet. That just goes to show the arbitrary and contrived nature of our obsession with putting things that are in no classes into them anyway and then drawing meanings from what class name we invented they are forced into. None of that matters however. Someone seemed to suggest labels actually make things or grant them characteristics or legitimacy. My point was things do not exist or become what we wish by assigning them labels.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

1. That you know every detail concerning the theory of creation I agree with (which by the way I did not even say I did).
2. Are you suggesting that creation posits being that never die and so leave no fossils?
3. Are you suggesting creation leaves no role for evolution?

I think God had a hand in evolution. Do you think that humans and dinosaurs existed simultaneously?

 

[1robin]

I think God had a hand in evolution. Do you think that humans and dinosaurs existed simultaneously?

It certainly could be that God did have a hand in it. In many ways it also appears to be fine tuned. No as far as I know, humans and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time. There are some interesting things discovered about them though. For example organic tissue is not supposed to survive long in nature after death yet dinosaurs millions and millions of years old have had blood and skin cells that still existed. I do not think they existed together but the truth is likely stranger that what is claimed to be the truth these days in many cases.

 

[Rapture Era]

The starting point for evolutionary theory is a population of organisms with a given gene pool. The theory states that given random mutation and other sources of genetic variation plus some form of selection, the population's gene pool will change over time. This has been extensively tested and is in no serious doubt. Given enough time, the gene pool may change so much the population has become a new species; and given very many generations, these species may diverge into new families, orders or higher taxa.
This is pure hypothesis and fantasy without critical thinking. It is always said so matter-of-factly but has anyone actually thought about how this population of organisms could even come about much less survive? But then again, if you dont believe in God you have to believe in something. The feeble attempts by evolutionary scientists to fabricate more theory's and conjecture keeps hitting the
proverbial wall with nothing to substantiate the theory.
Like most creationists, you are confusing evolutionary theory with theories of abiogenesis. You will find several articles on abiogenesis here, and I particularly recommend this one. Contrary to most creationist belief, abiogenesis is a well established field of science with many promising lines of research.
Well now, that is most presumptuous of you! Yes, "The Talk Origins Archive" is full of the same ol stuff. One statement among too many of them to list states that the "Miller Experiment" kick started life which produced amino acids essential to life. This is not true and very misleading which is typical. Miller was one of the pioneers in laboratory synthesis of NON LIVING amino acids in bottles with non-oxygen (reducing) atmoshere. Miller himself said this: "These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the earth had a reducing atmoshere when it was formed" Either way, whether the early earth had oxygen or not, evolutionists are locked into a situation here that they cannot escape from. Spontaeous generation could not occur with oxygen or without it. With oxygen, scientits tell us that there would be rapid oxidation of life chemical compounds and amino acids into seperate chemicals; without it there would be deadly ultraviolet light destroying both the life chemicals and Earth. Abiogenesis may very well be an established field of science with many promising lines of research but the fact still remains to this day that you cannot develop life spontaneously from nonliving materials! Life only comes from life, non-life cannot produce life. No, Im not confusing evolutionary theory with theories of abiogenesis because the theory of evolution as you stated above cannot take place for abiogenesis to even occur, but on it still goes, one conjecture after another; always searching for the magic mixture and fairyland environment needed to make life out of nothing.
Where to start? Pretty well every major advance in biology is a test of the theory of evolution: there have been plenty of opportunities for some new discovery to prove incompatible with the theory, but so far this has not happened. Take palaeontology: it would only take the discovery of a single bed of Precambrian fossils with vertebrate bones scattered among them to deal evolution a death-blow. Perhaps you should be out there digging. No thanks, I'll leave the digging up to you and those that continue to this day digging without results. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with blank slate as far as living and complex creatures are concerned. But, although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian layer, not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is the enigma of paleontological enigmas! Darwin himself said he could give no satisfactory answer to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are non the wiser. Triobites are deemed to be the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have ever been found, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them doesnot reveal other creatures with similar features. There has never been found any fossils that would suggest new information added to the so called gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs and mammals from reptiles just to name a few. It just flat isnt there!
If you prefer to be more up-to-date, DNA sequencing has revolutionised much of molecular biology. Think how embarrassing it would have been for evolutionary biology if human DNA had turned out to be more similar to a horse's than a chimp's; but no, DNA sequences turn out to be pretty much in line with all the other evolutionary evidence. What do you mean? Guess we've passed again.

Yeah,DNA, how does something full of mind blowing information and the ability to set out to build that model of you, both male and female and able to reproduce human beings with all of the right organs, in just the right place with all of the complex systems for a body to fuction and survive? Yes, evolution as you say is all hypothesis, and in your book, "we dont know, but here are some ideas to try out, has a thick edge over "we dont know, so god must have done it." For you to say to me, "Let me anticipate your first response," I would have agreed with you that evolution is all hypothesis, but I would not have said "we dont know so god must have done it." Just because I dont know something doesnt mean God did it, however, God did say he did it and how He did it. To my knoledge, I dont know of anyone ever in the history of mankind that has ever made such a claim, do you? So and in my book, His book has a much thicker edge than yours. So, keep hoping and digging and hypothesising that some day there will be some remote chance that someone will come up with a fossil or something, anything, that turns your hypothesis to actual facts and not pure conjecture. Good luck.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Creationist nonsense. All of it. And outdated creationist nonsense at that.

 

[1robin]

Creationist nonsense. All of it. And outdated creationist nonsense at that.

Well who can survive such a withering attack as this? It is no wonder Christianity is shrinking these days. Wait a minute it actually grows by the size of Nevada's population every year. That also explains why Christian scholars are so easy defeated in public debate. Wait a minute the dozens of Oxford and Cambridge, etc... debates where a vote has been taken the Christian has prevailed in every one. It however at least explains why there are so few Christians in sciences upper echelon. Wait a minute, there was those Faraday, Fermi, Maxwell, Newton, Galileo, Bohr, Lavoisier, Heisenberg guys and most of the rest of the who's who in science, even Darwin. I take it back. Your argument appears to indicate nothing except the lack of an actual argument.

DNA is information. No known source of information outside of mind exists or is known. Where did it come from?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well who can survive such a withering attack as this? It is no wonder Christianity is shrinking these days. Wait a minute it actually grows by the size of Nevada's population every year. That also explains why Christian scholars are so easy defeated in public debate. Wait a minute the dozens of Oxford and Cambridge, etc... debates where a vote has been taken the Christian has prevailed in every one. It however at least explains why there are so few Christians in sciences upper echelon. Wait a minute, there was those Faraday, Fermi, Maxwell, Newton, Galileo, Bohr, Lavoisier, Heisenberg guys and most of the rest of the who's who in science, even Darwin. I take it back. Your argument appears to indicate nothing except the lack of an actual argument.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? What has it got to do with outdated, erroneous arguments?

DNA is information. No known source of information outside of mind exists or is known. Where did it come from?

DNA is a molecule that encodes genetic information that facilitates chemical reactions.


Listen, I’ve spent plenty of time refuting every single individual claim made against evolution by this person. You know what I get in response? No acknowledgement of it, and just more empty assertions that could easily be answered by reading a science textbook. This is the same person that claims that evolution has been “crammed down their throat” all throughout their time in public school, and yet this person fails completely to understand even the most basic concepts behind evolution. So please excuse me for brushing off their empty claims for what they are.

 

[1robin]

What on earth does this have to do with anything? What has it got to do with outdated, erroneous arguments?

The fact that your reply did not point out a single erroneous claim that was made. They may have been erroneous but you did not demonstrate it. No, you selected what is apparently the new atheist creed. Militancy and arrogance is atheisms new competence and scholastic discussion. Whatever ever happened to the Nietzsche's, and the Flews'. Your side used to be respectful and actually produced much better arguments that they do today. People that could actually argue with intelligence and did not have hostility and derision for the opposite side. The new crop is all attitude and most of it is disgusting. There are currently many books written to explain this phenomena.

DNA is a molecule that encodes genetic information that facilitates chemical reactions.

It facilitates information? It contains 3.2 billion bits in just the right order to build the most complex arrangement of matter in the known universe. I just reviewed a talk from an Oxford pure mathematics professor and I work with a PhD who specialized in information theory and I use information theory every day. I will say again, information only comes from mind yet you posit information before mind. How did that occur?

Listen, I’ve spent plenty of time refuting every single individual claim made against evolution by this person. You know what I get in response? No acknowledgement of it, and just more empty assertions that could easily be answered by reading a science textbook. This is the same person that claims that evolution has been “crammed down their throat” all throughout their time in public school, and yet this person fails completely to understand even the most basic concepts behind evolution. So please excuse me for brushing off their empty claims for what they are.

I do not mind you refuting every claim every Christian ever made. It is none of my business. Maybe I am missing a little context but that last response appeared to be a person jumping up and down and yelling your an idiot. I see bias, emotional foundations driving philosophically claims devoid of any merit, and pretty lame attempts at mind games and sarcasm every day. I do not remember using them as the basis for an entire response. I may mention them along with evidence for what I mentioned. It would be a rare case indeed if my entire response consisted of "that is just more idiotic nonsense and that was all". I can grant that at some point maybe that is all that can be said but you should also grant that your side of the aisle has a level of arrogance and superiority that is quite obnoxious. If I mistook the former for the latter then I apologize.

 

[johnhanks]

Yeah,DNA, how does something full of mind blowing information and the ability to set out to build that model of you, both male and female and able to reproduce human beings with all of the right organs, in just the right place with all of the complex systems for a body to fuction and survive?

This is incoherent: I think you might have lost track of your question halfway through. Care to try again?

For you to say to me, "Let me anticipate your first response," I would have agreed with you that evolution is all hypothesis, but I would not have said "we dont know so god must have done it." Just because I dont know something doesnt mean God did it, however, God did say he did it and how He did it.

No, some people living in the Ancient Near East wrote a book in which they said god did it. And there's nothing in the book about how he is supposed to have done it - hardly surprising, since myths are exempt from hard explanations.

To my knoledge, I dont know of anyone ever in the history of mankind that has ever made such a claim, do you?

People all over the world have made that claim for their gods; yours is just another one.

 

[Rapture Era]

What on earth does this have to do with anything? What has it got to do with outdated, erroneous arguments?



DNA is a molecule that encodes genetic information that facilitates chemical reactions.


Listen, I’ve spent plenty of time refuting every single individual claim made against evolution by this person. You know what I get in response? No acknowledgement of it, and just more empty assertions that could easily be answered by reading a science textbook. This is the same person that claims that evolution has been “crammed down their throat” all throughout their time in public school, and yet this person fails completely to understand even the most basic concepts behind evolution. So please excuse me for brushing off their empty claims for what they are.

You have done nothing of the sort! You dont know how to spend time refuting a claim because you are too busy with your two-bit one liners and pathetic criticisms. Do some critical thinking of your own if you are capable and offer something to explain how non life can beget life in order for your basic evolutionary process to start in the first place instead offering "Creationist nonsense. All of it. And outdated creationist nonsense at that." I mean, is that it? Is that all ya got?

 

[Rapture Era]

This is incoherent: I think you might have lost track of your question halfway through. Care to try again?
How id it possible for evolution to create DNA, hows that?
No, some people living in the Ancient Near East wrote a book in which they said god did it. And there's nothing in the book about how he is supposed to have done it - hardly surprising, since myths are exempt from hard explanations.
Which book is that?
People all over the world have made that claim for their gods; yours is just another one.

Really? Like who? Who said they created the universe, earth and all living things on it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have done nothing of the sort! You dont know how to spend time refuting a claim because you are too busy with your two-bit one liners and pathetic criticisms. Do some critical thinking of your own if you are capable and offer something to explain how non life can beget life in order for your basic evolutionary process to start in the first place instead offering "Creationist nonsense. All of it. And outdated creationist nonsense at that." I mean, is that it? Is that all ya got?

Really? So what do you call posts 1740, 1741, 1760, 1761 and 1784?
Did you miss those somehow? How convenient for you. See, this is why I didn't waste my time going through every single one of your claims this time around.

I do plenty of my own critical thinking, actually, it's one of the reasons I don't believe in your god.


And life coming from non-life refers to ABIOGENESIS not EVOLUTION. They are different things. (I mentioned this in the 6 different posts I referenced above as well.)

 

[McBell]

Do some critical thinking of your own if you are capable and offer something to explain how non life can beget life in order for your basic evolutionary process to start in the first place instead offering Creationist nonsense. All of it. And outdated creationist nonsense at that." I mean, is that it? Is that all ya got?[/COLOR]

If you are wanting to know about abiogenesis, you should either start a thread about abiogenesis or join one of the many abiogenesis threads.

Now if you are intent on pursuing this particular off topicness, I have to ask from what life does God come from, I mean if life cannot come from non-life....

 

[1robin]

If you are wanting to know about abiogenesis, you should either start a thread about abiogenesis or join one of the many abiogenesis threads.

Now if you are intent on pursuing this particular off topicness, I have to ask from what life does God come from, I mean if life cannot come from non-life....

There are two arguments so absurd they have been ridiculed even in children's Sunday school classes. Or at least the one you made is. The other is Dawkin's central argument. Dawkin's has enough trouble with what he says alone, so I will only speak on yours. God as a concept has no need of life or anything else to come from. Organic life only comes from organic life. That is not the Bible's law or rule. It is biology's and has no known exception. Let me give you a tip never ever ask what created God or the even worse form you stated it in if you wish your statement to be taken seriously. It is a law or rule of biology, evolution is under biological laws God made them and is under no law it contains. The very idea that what is true of biology must be true of a disembodied mind is just silly.

Any series of cause and effect can't possibly be endless. There must be a first cause that is it's self uncaused. Philosophy and theology and even science indirectly indicate that whatever that first cause was it must have characteristics very similar to what ignorant man gave God 5000 years ago. God is not a certainty but an uncaused first cause is. We have a universe something that did not have a cause produced it. If we had to keep going back in infinity with no end tracking causes and effect we would never get a universe.

 

[CG Didymus]

...The very idea that what is true of biology must be true of a disembodied mind is just silly.

Yet, God is three in one? And one of those is a body called Jesus? And don't tell me Jesus doesn't have a body because he said himself to come touch him and see that he was not a ghost but real, meaning a real, biological body. After all, he did eat with them before he ascended. And, he is eternal isn't he?

 

[McBell]

There are two arguments so absurd they have been ridiculed even in children's Sunday school classes. Or at least the one you made is. The other is Dawkin's central argument. Dawkin's has enough trouble with what he says alone, so I will only speak on yours. God as a concept has no need of life or anything else to come from. Organic life only comes from organic life. That is not the Bible's law or rule. It is biology's and has no known exception. Let me give you a tip never ever ask what created God or the even worse form you stated it in if you wish your statement to be taken seriously. It is a law or rule of biology, evolution is under biological laws God made them and is under no law it contains. The very idea that what is true of biology must be true of a disembodied mind is just silly.

Any series of cause and effect can't possibly be endless. There must be a first cause that is it's self uncaused. Philosophy and theology and even science indirectly indicate that whatever that first cause was it must have characteristics very similar to what ignorant man gave God 5000 years ago. God is not a certainty but an uncaused first cause is. We have a universe something that did not have a cause produced it. If we had to keep going back in infinity with no end tracking causes and effect we would never get a universe.

You completely destroy your own argument when you make God an exception to the rule you use to evidence Gods existence.

Surely you can see that?

 

[1robin]

Yet, God is three in one? And one of those is a body called Jesus? And don't tell me Jesus doesn't have a body because he said himself to come touch him and see that he was not a ghost but real, meaning a real, biological body. After all, he did eat with them before he ascended. And, he is eternal isn't he?

I did not think that argument could get any worse. You must have studied hard. Jesus body was not God. His body was the same as ours. I am not bound by the position the other side takes. I use arguments from biology to deal with those that believe that natural law is all there is. I operate within their rules because I must find common ground to debate them on. I posit the supernatural so of course I am not restricted to the natural alone. Now if you or he were on board with the supernatural then we could have a whole different conversation. You and he believe natural law is all there is and so must get life from non life without the supernatural. On that basis I debate people from your side. Now if you believe the first life arose from the non-natural then we may be getting somewhere but if you dogmatically stick with the natural then you, not I, must get life from non-life by natural means. I take back my first statement. Your argument was not worse, it had absolutely no effect on anything, but it was clever. I appreciate the challenge even if it was an ineffectual one. I am a theist and so am not bound by the natural. Your side is and so you have the problem, not me, but nice idea.