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

[SkepticThinker]

I care little about what Hitchens claimed. They posited Hell for themselves as well and gave themselves some very very inconvenient methods for getting out of the jam.

It doesn’t matter if you care what Hitchens claimed. I’m claiming it now.

To me, it’s pretty obvious that the idea of hell was created to deal with people who don’t follow the rules of Christianity and/or worship some other god(s).

I take it you have never read Leviticus. No one that cared anything for convenience would have created a fraction of the list it contains. Servitude was legal and benevolent and almost always voluntary. I see posted page after page of evidence and facts did not dent your pet objection at all.

I’ve read Leviticus and the rest of the Bible.

People who wanted slaves would have created “servitude” (which was not voluntary for non-Hebrews or for Hebrews you were able to trick by finding them a wife). And only someone who had no choice but to accept the supposed perfect morality of god would have to accept that slavery is okay rather than to point it out for the immoral act that it is. I find it ridiculous and a bit disconcerting that you have to justify slavery in the way you do. Somehow you’ve convinced yourself that slavery was voluntary? Who would volunteer to give up ownership of one’s life to someone else? Think about what you’re saying.

This doesn’t sound voluntary to me, does it to you?

Leviticus 25: 44-46
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Killing was and is justified at times, yet they recorded God's incredible wrath when they did so without justification.

They were only allowed to kill when god commanded it. That makes it okay? Why couldn’t god carry out his own dirty deeds?

Genocide is practical given purpose at that time yet was a great exception not a rule. I can give you link to the best discussion of OT warfare if you wish and I have read many secular books on the subject. It was not what you apparently wish it was.

And here you are justifying an immoral act in the same way you defend the immoral act of slavery simply because you HAVE to accept that everything god deems is good and moral despite the fact that if you think about it for a few seconds, it’s not. This is what bothers me about the whole divine authority of morality argument you’re always trying to make. It’s not a system of morality; rather, it’s a system of obedience to authority where you’re blindly doing what you’re told without exercising your own moral reasoning.

No, it is not. It is a something apologists have tailored their arguments to keep even the false claims of it to a minimum. I can give you a link to a pure mathematician professor from Oxford talking about the issue if you wish.

Sorry, but I see it time and time again.

Please pay attention to this. Here is their Earth shattering evidence:

In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.

Pay attention to what it says. It says four things that are improbable exists and that a theory exist. That is being very very generous but it gets worse. Even if by some miracle which will never occur (how would this ever be resolved even given the unlikely chance it is true?) it would be the very first piece of evidence. So by their own admission this guess work (to be very generous) is the only possible evidence that exists.

Calm down, nobody is saying this is 100% proof positive that a multiverse exists. As good scientists do, they point out there is still much work to be done (as there is for everything abiogenesis-related) if the hypothesis is to be verified. They posited what they might expect to find if a multiverse were to exist, then went and tested for it, as discussed in the article:
“The idea that there are many other universes out there is not new, as scientists have previously suggested that we live in a “multiverse” consisting of an infinite number of universes. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing. When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.

These infinite universes are sometimes called bubble universes even though they are irregular-shaped, not round. The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes. As Feeney, et al., explain in their paper, these collisions produce inhomogeneities in the inner-bubble cosmology, which could appear in the CMB. The scientists developed an algorithm to search for bubble collisions in the CMB with specific properties, which led them to find the four circular patterns.”
http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

It’s just another potential line of evidence and research to add to the mix of pre-existing hypotheses. I guess you want them all to just give up and accept the pet hypothesis you’ve already adopted, but luckily, science doesn’t work that way. How do you think Big Bang came to be? Do you think they just found all the evidence all at once and declared it true, or do you think the evidence built up over time and repeated study and testing?

This could be resolved by finding more evidence. That’s how it works. Or it could be thrown in the trash heap. Time will tell.


Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

How on Earth can you deny Biblical evidence and then buy into this stuff.

Because the Bible isn’t evidence of anything other than the existence of the Bible. The miracle claims contained within the Bible aren’t verifiable at all. I don’t accept it any more than I accept the Quran or the Rig Vedas.

It is not even science.

Of course it is. How do you think they came up with evidence for the Big Bang which you already accept? It’s the same kind of evidence. What do you think your buddy Penrose is doing when he looks for concentric circles with temperature anomalies in the cosmic microwave background in an attempt to find evidence for cyclic cosmology? Funny how you accept his findings as scientific but not the ones that have implications you don’t seem to like.

It is hyperbolic assumptions on steroids. Every link I have ever been given for multiverses and abiogenesis turns out to be void of anything useful. I will no longer follow these links for the time being. There is no meaningful evidence for either currently. I can't believe people get paid to do this. Where have the Newton's and Einstein's all gone.

I guess you better stop citing Penrose as some kind of authority then.

Big Bang is based on this kind of evidence. Why do you accept it then? Hubble’s initial evidence for Big Bang was the apparent existence of Cepheid variables in spiral nebulae which led him to believe that the universe was expanding. This of course, led to further research and more evidence. According to you though, that is not science and he should not have been wasting his time with it.

Hey, if you want to remain ignorant, go right ahead, I can’t stop you. I’m going to keep up with all new findings because I find them fascinating.

I am quite aware of what you think. The issue is if what you think is the best conclusion too make given what we have. I have spent quite a bit of time suggesting in quite a few ways it is not.

The best conclusion I can come to is that all kinds of people have been making all kinds of religious claims for centuries, none of which are demonstrable or verifiable. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.

So I’m going to stick with the demonstrable, verifiable stuff.

It would only be a virtue if true it would be a terrible mistake if not. I used to be puzzled why God would place so much value on faith in salvation even after I had been born again. It was only when I saw the impossibility of every other possible standard for salvation that I saw faith for what it actually is.

What’s the point of the commandments then?

Faith and faith alone in Christ has done more good for humanity that every moral philosopher, evolutionist, and ethics expert all combined.

This is just another one of your grandiose claims that doesn’t really add up.

What great contributions to humanity was Christianity making for the hundreds of years it persecuted and murdered non-believers, heretics, witches, etc.?

I’d say science has done the most good for humanity, by far. We’re healthier than ever, we live longer than we ever have, we’re experiencing a better quality of life than anyone ever has, we understand the world we live in better than anyone ever has. It’s by far the best method we’ve ever produced for discovering and understanding reality.

 

[CG Didymus]

I used to be puzzled why God would place so much value on faith in salvation even after I had been born again. It was only when I saw the impossibility of every other possible standard for salvation that I saw faith for what it actually is. Faith and faith alone in Christ has done more good for humanity that every moral philosopher, evolutionist, and ethics expert all combined.

Faith without James is dead. Too many Christians don't act on their "faith" and actually do as Christ says. Are they humble and loving? It doesn't seem so. What are the "works" that would indicate a true faith? But don't people from other religions "act" loving and kind? Don't they have high moral standards? Where did that come from? Probably faith, right? Faith in their own version of God and religion. So is it necessarily what you believe, since most religions tell their followers to do good and be moral, or how you apply it?

 

[1robin]

When we're talking about good vs. evil, God to the Christian is totally good and Satan completely evil. Yet, God created him? I wonder if it was a mistake? Or, maybe we're a mistake. Or, maybe God isn't so perfect? But, stranger still, is how God and Satan are defined very differently in Judaism than in Christianity. It seems religious beliefs are very relative. But somehow, some Christians still think they have all the right answers? No matter what, they are always right. How can you argue with that? Anyway, I don't know if you've made a dent in any of the Christian's brains, but your posts have taught me a lot. Thanks.

God did not create Satan evil. He chose to rebel against God and so became evil. Almost every mistake a non-theist makes concerning God comes from a lack of understanding about a hierarchy of God's motivation's. God's priority is no to make us happy or make life easy and may not be to defeat evil until a certain time. God's purpose was to produce a being that could freely choose to follow him or not. That necessitates freewill, which necessitates wrong choices, which necessitate suffering, etc..... Stan, evil, suffering are not optimal from our point of view but may be necessary to carry out God's purpose. If no one suffered when they rebelled against God how could they know it was wrong. If Satan nor we could not rebel how could we know freewill exists. Satan is not good but he may be necessary for a while. Since only with God is Satan ever defeated, evil ever over come, death defeated, pain eliminated, etc... it seems silly to reject the solution because we are mad at the problem. There are many books and discussions on Satan and God's roll concerning him if you actually wish an in-depth answer.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

God did not create Satan evil. He chose to rebel against God and so became evil. Almost every mistake a non-theist makes concerning God comes from a lack of understanding about a hierarchy of God's motivation's. God's priority is no to make us happy or make life easy and may not be to defeat evil until a certain time. God's purpose was to produce a being that could freely choose to follow him or not. That necessitates freewill, which necessitates wrong choices, which necessitate suffering, etc..... Stan, evil, suffering are not optimal from our point of view but may be necessary to carry out God's purpose. If no one suffered when they rebelled against God how could they know it was wrong. If Satan nor we could not rebel how could we know freewill exists. Satan is not good but he may be necessary for a while. Since only with God is Satan ever defeated, evil ever over come, death defeated, pain eliminated, etc... it seems silly to reject the solution because we are mad at the problem. There are many books and discussions on Satan and God's roll concerning him if you actually wish an in-depth answer.

When did the rebellion happen? The book of Enoch gives some details of it.

 

[1robin]

Satan is mentioned 2 times by Jesus, the first time is when he is in the desert and is tempted (which fits the role of Satan the opposer/accuser), the second time is in reference to Peter. Which again fits as Satan has been used plenty of times to describe again someone who opposes/or accuses. I see no reason from what was recorded as the words of Jesus for their to be a malevolent entity separate from God who opposes God. Now if you follow the bible to accept that you would need to accept that those who mention it are drawing from the book of Enoch, as it is from there that the idea of Satan would hold water and even there I believe that we have mention of a divine messiah. So I suppose you must take the books of enoch as canon?

That is a little odd. You Satan is used to describe one who opposes God and man and then say there is no reason think of him as an oppose of either. If God is benevolent than what opposes can't help but be malevolent. Do you mean the Bible book that concerns Enoch or the extra biblical book of Enoch?

There is a watermelon brain and a pea brain? That doesn't make much sense as it's not the size of the brain alone that constitutes intelligence, but the folding's and the ratio.

It has certainly been claimed to be the most influential factor. It certainly is A factor. Let's say it was 100% folding that makes no difference as the level of folding would be a product of evolution as well. It is biological and evolution produces inequalities in biology. This is so intuitive on every level it just appalls me that it is resisted so often by non-theists.

The sperm well for instance has a larger brain than our own. Yet I doubt you would survive long in the water without some sort of breathing apparatus, it's not your environment. Not to mention that evolution in the case of natural selection is on the genes passed on upon a population, within an environment.

We were not discussing survivability or environmental adaptation but the capacity for moral sophistication and apprehension. Something must be getting lost in the translation. Evolution produces inequalities on every level. Inequalities produce differences in capacity. Differences in capacity are the basis of racism.

If you are talking about humans being able to compare morality then you are looking at society, and if you want to equate it to some form of evolution, in that case you are looking at artificial selection (but even that is a stretch at best). There is nothing natural about it. Natural selection will dictate that an organism within an environment is considered most successful when it passes along its genes. The environment though is constantly changing, so what is successful now, doesn't mean it will be successful later. Humans have been successful for a short period of time in evolutionary history, countless organisms before us have gone extinct and we have even lost some of our fellow Genus members. There is no foundation to claim superiority by evolution when how well you are suited for an environment relies on the environment remaining stagnant which it won't.

Both society and morals are functions of evolution of would be if no God existed. There is no artificial selection everything is a result of biology. What thought is produced outside the brain. What brain would not be effected by evolution. I think your wanting to strictly confine evolution to biology without admitting the biology it produces it what produces everything else. That is why I have grown weary discussing the theory. It shrinks and expands to perform as is desired. There is not one function of biology it does not affect. Constantly in debates Dawkins and others of his ilk claim evolution is responsible for morality as log as it is neutral or good morality. The moment some malevolent moral is mentioned then evolution shrinks to just outside that capacity. It is like a whack-amole theory.

Would you claim Ebola is superior to humans? When it strikes it has a mortality rate of 90%.

In lethality possibly, in morality no. We have not been discussing lethality but moral inequality produced by biology which is a function of evolution.

A perfect being cannot create something that is not perfect. It is against it's very nature. The idea of perfect means without flaw, that denotes action. You are perfect is a judgment of your actions as well as your existence. Now if you want to argue that the definitions of perfection are different then fine that works.

He did not create an evil Satan. Satan used to be the angel in change of praise and worship. He created Satan with the ability to choose wrongly. Once chosen it had the effects involved with the fall. If you note most things that are non-optimal they exist because God allows them not because he created them. God did not create divorce, we did, he allows it because were imperfect not because he is. BTW how would the imperfect know what the perfect meant. How do you or I know what is perfect?

However if you are going along with the claim that God is the source of morality then it would stand even if our morality is twisted from Gods original source (which again brings perfection into question), it still stems from God and we would be judging God using the same merit that God gave us. As well if it is indeed a source from God it would be ingrained with our very being that our nature alone would be able to determine for us what is right or wrong.

God creates a universe which is perfect. However he allows us the capacity to act on and against that quality. What results is imperfection. He set up a system where good morals produce good things and bad morals receive that which their nature insures, wrath. We do the wrong thing and then curse God for the wrath that is incorporated in nature or originates directly from God. That make no sense. Your attempting to confuse wrath or the non-optimal with mistakes or imperfections. Aquinas and others find no reason a perfect being and evil may not co-exist. Why do you?

Now the argument of morality that is objective, to me doesn't hold much water. Moralities have changed throughout the history of mankind. To say that truth is a singular objective, I suppose is possible, but if I were to say 1+1=2 is true that does not mean that 3-1=2 is also not true.

I asked you a question I did not make a claim. I said if you believe that even one thing is actually wrong then God must exist. I do not care if no one believed it but you. I mean if anything actually is wrong. If torturing a child without justification is actually objectively wrong then God must exist. If he does no then no actually right or wrong exists and morality is an illusion.

 

[1robin]

Faith without James is dead.

Now that was funny. Find that verse please. It says faith without works not James.

Too many Christians don't act on their "faith" and actually do as Christ says. Are they humble and loving? It doesn't seem so. What are the "works" that would indicate a true faith? But don't people from other religions "act" loving and kind? Don't they have high moral standards? Where did that come from? Probably faith, right? Faith in their own version of God and religion. So is it necessarily what you believe, since most religions tell their followers to do good and be moral, or how you apply it?

What do you have like 12 questions in that one paragraph. There are two issues here. Salvation and duty. What is true of one may or may not be true of the other.

James is contrasting what two type of faith look like to a person. One is a superficial head knowledge that produces a little and even what it does produce has the wrong motivation. The other is a born again faith that will produce works. James is not saying that works produce salvation but that the faith that produces salvation also will produce works. You seem to misunderstand that and then compound the problem by assuming that you know what "enough" works are. Since your whole case is about what level of obedience a Christian must have (and that is especially bizarre coming from a non-Christian) but until you give me the exact standard then discussions about levels of obedience are meaningless. Salvation is my favorite issue and I can get way more involved than you probably wish. For now let me give some sound bites to indicate what the Bible teaches.

1. All men fall short (except Christ). No one merits heaven because the standard is perfection.
2. We are legally declared perfect by virtue of Christ's merits not our own by faith.
3. Obedience is crucial in every way but is not what produces salvation. Salvation requires perfection and no one is.
4. The faith that produces salvation will be marked by works but those works do not produce salvation. Even if they did (which is philosophically and Biblically impossible) you have no what to know what level of obedience is required. This is armchair quarterbacking at its worst.
5. The man who knew more about the law and obedience than all the other apostles wrote more on grace than all the other apostles combined.
6. James is a very short book and contrasts what two types of faith will produce.

In revelations there is a man who had no work of any kind that passed inspection yet it makes clear the man himself will be saved by the merits of Christ because ours always fall short. Christ forgave all sin. I can't do my part because he did the entirety of what was needed to save me. Works have to do with temporal judgment and rewards not salvation. If you think otherwise then please give me the standard in detail required.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Satan is mentioned 2 times by Jesus, the first time is when he is in the desert and is tempted (which fits the role of Satan the opposer/accuser), the second time is in reference to Peter. Which again fits as Satan has been used plenty of times to describe again someone who opposes/or accuses. I see no reason from what was recorded as the words of Jesus for their to be a malevolent entity separate from God who opposes God. Now if you follow the bible to accept that you would need to accept that those who mention it are drawing from the book of Enoch, as it is from there that the idea of Satan would hold water and even there I believe that we have mention of a divine messiah. So I suppose you must take the books of enoch as canon?

That is a little odd. You Satan is used to describe one who opposes God and man and then say there is no reason think of him as an oppose of either. If God is benevolent than what opposes can't help but be malevolent. Do you mean the Bible book that concerns Enoch or the extra biblical book of Enoch?

It has certainly been claimed to be the most influential factor. It certainly is A factor. Let's say it was 100% folding that makes no difference as the level of folding would be a product of evolution as well. It is biological and evolution produces inequalities in biology. This is so intuitive on every level it just appalls me that it is resisted so often by non-theists.

We were not discussing survivability or environmental adaptation but the capacity for moral sophistication and apprehension. Something must be getting lost in the translation. Evolution produces inequalities on every level. Inequalities produce differences in capacity. Differences in capacity are the basis of racism.

Both society and morals are functions of evolution of would be if no God existed. There is no artificial selection everything is a result of biology. What thought is produced outside the brain. What brain would not be effected by evolution. I think your wanting to strictly confine evolution to biology without admitting the biology it produces it what produces everything else. That is why I have grown weary discussing the theory. It shrinks and expands to perform as is desired. There is not one function of biology it does not affect. Constantly in debates Dawkins and others of his ilk claim evolution is responsible for morality as log as it is neutral or good morality. The moment some malevolent moral is mentioned then evolution shrinks to just outside that capacity. It is like a whack-amole theory.

In lethality possibly, in morality no. We have not been discussing lethality but moral inequality produced by biology which is a function of evolution.

He did not create an evil Satan. Satan used to be the angel in change of praise and worship. He created Satan with the ability to choose wrongly. Once chosen it had the effects involved with the fall. If you note most things that are non-optimal they exist because God allows them not because he created them. God did not create divorce, we did, he allows it because were imperfect not because he is. BTW how would the imperfect know what the perfect meant. How do you or I know what is perfect?

God creates a universe which is perfect. However he allows us the capacity to act on and against that quality. What results is imperfection. He set up a system where good morals produce good things and bad morals receive that which their nature insures, wrath. We do the wrong thing and then curse God for the wrath that is incorporated in nature or originates directly from God. That make no sense. Your attempting to confuse wrath or the non-optimal with mistakes or imperfections. Aquinas and others find no reason a perfect being and evil may not co-exist. Why do you?


I asked you a question I did not make a claim. I said if you believe that even one thing is actually wrong then God must exist. I do not care if no one believed it but you. I mean if anything actually is wrong. If torturing a child without justification is actually objectively wrong then God must exist. If he does no then no actually right or wrong exists and morality is an illusion.

The Universe is far from perfect, simply because perfection in the case of the Universe is subjective. What exactly makes the Universe Perfect? Is it the abilityt ot support life which as far as we know is only a small percentage of the universe.

Is it obeying the laws of physics? We know that the Universe at many points doesn't do that.

So what makes it perfect and can even objectively be called perfect?

You say that morality has to be objective and you say that "Torturing Children is wrong and is morally objective"(paraphrasing)

So is Owning another person not wrong? It's a question that I've asked plenty of times and you've never given a direct answer. Is it morally correct to own another person? Because if morality is objective their isn't a scale difference between torturing children and owning another person.

 

[1robin]

It doesn’t matter if you care what Hitchens claimed. I’m claiming it now.

Hitchens skill lies in being wrong with more flourish than anyone. He exemplified the new militant "I don't believe in God and I hate him" atheist crowd. He was entertaining but little else. Have you ever seen him debate his twin brother?

To me, it’s pretty obvious that the idea of hell was created to deal with people who don’t follow the rules of Christianity and/or worship some other god(s).

Hell or sheol was around long before any Christian rules were. You do not go to Hell for lack of obedience but for lack of faith anyway. The Jews did not posit Hell for non-Jews or the Catholics for only non-Catholics etc... The Jews posited Hell for everyone unless they adopted the truth. They recorded their own failures to live up to the truth. A failure which no greater exists even in theory. If the Jews had granted instant heaven for Jews at birth or only available to Jews you might have the beginnings of a point. They granted Heaven to even a prostitute among their mortal enemies and Christians do not grant it to even their own Children at birth. There is nothing convenient about Hell.

I’ve read Leviticus and the rest of the Bible.

People who wanted slaves would have created “servitude” (which was not voluntary for non-Hebrews or for Hebrews you were able to trick by finding them a wife). And only someone who had no choice but to accept the supposed perfect morality of god would have to accept that slavery is okay rather than to point it out for the immoral act that it is. I find it ridiculous and a bit disconcerting that you have to justify slavery in the way you do. Somehow you’ve convinced yourself that slavery was voluntary? Who would volunteer to give up ownership of one’s life to someone else? Think about what you’re saying.

Good start but no staying power. They would not have granted them freedom after 6 years even if they had not worked off their debt. They would not have established the most benevolent treatment known to ANE history for those servants. They would not have convicted to death the masters for mistreating slaves.
This doesn’t sound voluntary to me, does it to you? Nor allowing them to legally run away at any point. They even gave them a right to settle in any tribe which they denied themselves. It was illegal to return them, etc.... What you did is IMO the most despicable tactic the liberal crowd uses. If they can't make a case (and they seldom can) they twist things around and make some bizarre case about moral high ground. If I wish to save unborn humans from being killed by irresponsible adults I am against women's rights, if I wish to retain the monetary stability of the most generous nation in history by limiting hand outs I hate grandma, and if wish to resist the worst piece of legislation in US history and reject Obama care then I am for sick people. Then this same person will claim that my support for servitude (with property rights, food, and housing) in a nation with no welfare is wrong but turning tens of thousands of starving war captives loose on a nation is good. I detest that strategy and it is and will finally destroy this nation.

Leviticus 25: 44-46

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Continued ...

I have been through this too many times. Be sure what you believe is true because you may be held to account for it. Denying the solution because of a misapprehension of the problem is self defeating. We have slavery, servitude, abortion, sickness, and suffering either way but only with God is it ever rectified.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God did not create Satan evil. He chose to rebel against God and so became evil.

So the rebellion against God wasn't evil itself; the evil came later?

 

[1robin]

They were only allowed to kill when god commanded it. That makes it okay? Why couldn’t god carry out his own dirty deeds?

Good Lord man. If God ordered the death of someone in what way could it be shown he was wrong? BY what standard? He did carry out his wrath at times and he was attacked for it as well by those who are apparently such God's themselves their standards can judge him even if they can't even create a just world. If you are going to indicate God for killing then you are going to have to come up with a competent judge, sufficient standard, and prove injustice. I do not even see an attempt at any one of these.

And here you are justifying an immoral act in the same way you defend the immoral act of slavery simply because you HAVE to accept that everything god deems is good and moral despite the fact that if you think about it for a few seconds, it’s not. This is what bothers me about the whole divine authority of morality argument you’re always trying to make. It’s not a system of morality; rather, it’s a system of obedience to authority where you’re blindly doing what you’re told without exercising your own moral reasoning.

If you have an alternative then you must have the capacity to rightly judge God. Is that going to show up any time soon. Your side of the aisle has lacked the capacity to justly govern Earthly matters but insists it can judge God's. Is it possible to get any more arrogant than this. A race that kills it's own by the billions on an industrial scale just has no case against God.

Sorry, but I see it time and time again.

The God of the bible comes within a context. That context has nature running unsupervised most of the time and God only occasional stepping into it. We also have a nature than can regulate its self but not explain or produce its self. A god that explains exceptions is the exact type of God the Bible posits. I deny you assertion motivation because we did not invent that God (at least not since the things that needed explaining were known). Call God whatever you wish if it makes you feel better but our motivation is not to invent anything to fill gaps that happen to not be known at the time.

Calm down, nobody is saying this is 100% proof positive that a multiverse exists. As good scientists do, they point out there is still much work to be done (as there is for everything abiogenesis-related) if the hypothesis is to be verified. They posited what they might expect to find if a multiverse were to exist, then went and tested for it, as discussed in the article:

Calm down? If I was any more calm I would be dead. Of course there is work to be done. 100% of it as a matter of fact. I am all for them attempting it to. I only insist God (which has mountains of evidence) is not dismissed for lack of proof, if multiverses (which have 0 evidence) are posited as a valid possibility.

“The idea that there are many other universes out there is not new, as scientists have previously suggested that we live in a “multiverse” consisting of an infinite number of universes. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing. When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.

These infinite universes are sometimes called bubble universes even though they are irregular-shaped, not round. The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes. As Feeney, et al., explain in their paper, these collisions produce inhomogeneities in the inner-bubble cosmology, which could appear in the CMB. The scientists developed an algorithm to search for bubble collisions in the CMB with specific properties, which led them to find the four circular patterns.”
http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

I believe I already read that same nothing you posted. I quoted the site!!! We do not know what gravity is or why it does what it does, nor what the weather will be 48 hours from now and argue on how many soldier Picket's charge had in it with battle reports from participants but you suggest we know what happened a billion years ago and that we think multiverse exist because of four non-typical measurements in a universe where 99.999999999999% of it is unobservable. Simply remarkable.

It’s just another potential line of evidence and research to add to the mix of pre-existing hypotheses.

First it was not evidence at all. It was a measurement that a theory was associated with. Second the other 99.999999999999% of evidence we actually do have posits a finite universe. We are also finite and decisions must be made that are consistent with the most reliable facts actually known. Why is it only concerning God that things are deferred or theories considered in-spite of reliable evidence. Believe what you wish but I insist on consistent standards in a debate. Either always go with the best evidence or against it but do so consistently.

I guess you want them all to just give up and accept the pet hypothesis you’ve already adopted, but luckily, science doesn’t work that way. How do you think Big Bang came to be? Do you think they just found all the evidence all at once and declared it true, or do you think the evidence built up over time and repeated study and testing?

I don't care what they do. In fact I am all for their checking into whatever they wish. I only insist that consistent standards are maintained and they are not.

This could be resolved by finding more evidence. That’s how it works. Or it could be thrown in the trash heap. Time will tell.

That is fine but what we know now is consistent with God and we must decide upon that within our lifespan. Why have you adopted the theological position in spite of the evidence and talked mostly about the almost infinitely less evidenced cosmological nature of the universe. Inconsistent. God is consistent with facts and multiverse inconsistent.

 

[1robin]

Because the Bible isn’t evidence of anything other than the existence of the Bible. The miracle claims contained within the Bible aren’t verifiable at all. I don’t accept it any more than I accept the Quran or the Rig Vedas.

The heck it isn't. It is so accurate it is a primary archeology resource. In every historical or legal claim what can be verified is used to establish the reliability of what can't. Why are you yet again going against that perfectly logical method only when it concerns God. The unreliability of other theological works where they can be checked are the very reasons I deny them the same as why I accept he Bible. The Quran is a historical train wreck.

Of course it is. How do you think they came up with evidence for the Big Bang which you already accept? It’s the same kind of evidence. What do you think your buddy Penrose is doing when he looks for concentric circles with temperature anomalies in the cosmic microwave background in an attempt to find evidence for cyclic cosmology? Funny how you accept his findings as scientific but not the ones that have implications you don’t seem to like.

As I have said over and over. The most accepted cosmological model is a single finite universe. A theory that has a total of four non-typical measurements in an entire universe is not science. I can look around and make up unsubstantiated theories but I do not call it science. The universe is defined as everything. How is the study of other everything's science? It is not even coherent.

I guess you better stop citing Penrose as some kind of authority then.

He is an authority on science, no one is an authority on multiple universes.

Big Bang is based on this kind of evidence. Why do you accept it then? Hubble’s initial evidence for Big Bang was the apparent existence of Cepheid variables in spiral nebulae which led him to believe that the universe was expanding. This of course, led to further research and more evidence. According to you though, that is not science and he should not have been wasting his time with it.

The big bang is not based on the same evidence and has almost infinitely more of it than multiverses. We can see things flying apart. You can't see other universes. If you consider the two even remotely based on the same quality of evidence or the amount of it I just give up.

Hey, if you want to remain ignorant, go right ahead, I can’t stop you. I’m going to keep up with all new findings because I find them fascinating.

I see that invisible high ground is still a substitute for an argument that could not be made on merit.

The best conclusion I can come to is that all kinds of people have been making all kinds of religious claims for centuries, none of which are demonstrable or verifiable. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.

That is almost the polar opposite of what is the best solution for the given facts. Only in your world is the virtually universal apprehension of something evidence it does not exist. God grief.

So I’m going to stick with the demonstrable, verifiable stuff.

Then multiverses are off that short list. In fact the only thing on it is that we think we think. That is a perfect example of double standards. Science - anything and everything is just fine, even nothing is evidence. Theology - nothing but demonstrable proof is sufficient (and it is only theoretically enough, I actually doubt it).

What’s the point of the commandments then?

You may have read the Bible but if you do not know this you did not understand it. The law in every form has two functions. To pattern our living and to point out our failure. The law has never saved anyone and is powerless to do so. The standard is perfection.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

This is just another one of your grandiose claims that doesn’t really add up.

Well I am in good company.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish TheologianJames Stuart

The conservative Christian American is the most generous demographic on Earth. Christians created more school systems, charities, and hospitals than any cultural group has. The Christian US saved the world from tyranny twice and communism many times. It contains both the book and the person more universally associated with love, compassion, perfection, and benevolence of any in human history. We invented many of the fields of science and the breakthroughs they contain.

What great contributions to humanity was Christianity making for the hundreds of years it persecuted and murdered non-believers, heretics, witches, etc.?

See above. You must first prove they were Christians then that they were obeying Christ. Only your side would evaluate a teacher by his most rebellious students and ignore the most loyal and obedient.

I’d say science has done the most good for humanity, by far. We’re healthier than ever, we live longer than we ever have, we’re experiencing a better quality of life than anyone ever has, we understand the world we live in better than anyone ever has. It’s by far the best method we’ve ever produced for discovering and understandin

g reality.

Science has never cured anything. Science is a word. A word that Hitler used to sew twins together with, Stalin used to implement genocidal tactics based on evolution, and has been actually used to claim morality is an illusion its self. One of sciences chemicals in less than 4 years alone killed more people that Christians did in 2000. We have cell phones and yet kill millions of humans in the womb. We have Nintendo and the capacity to wipe all life in the known universe out and the moral insanity to have almost done so at least twice and it is getting worse. Even at sciences best it is ultimately futile because we still die and always will. See the above again. Christ said what will you profit if you gain the world and lose your soul. Apparently you are striking an even less appealing bargain.

 

[MeLtiZBleaCh]

Does it explain why God still hasn't got rid of it?

If you take into the concept of reward and punishment in the afterlife everything fits together :beach:

 

[1robin]

The Universe is far from perfect, simply because perfection in the case of the Universe is subjective. What exactly makes the Universe Perfect? Is it the abilityt ot support life which as far as we know is only a small percentage of the universe.
Is it obeying the laws of physics? We know that the Universe at many points doesn't do that.

How did obeying the laws of physics (or the few of them we know of) become the standard of perfection? Are the laws of the quantum less than perfect? Only this percentage of the universe may have been intended to support life. You are making assumptions about what the standard of perfection is, then assuming that God must produce them, then assuming they could not have gone astray as a part of purpose. Why?

So what makes it perfect and can even objectively be called perfect?

I do not claim it is perfect nor need be so I have no need of a standard.

You say that morality has to be objective and you say that "Torturing Children is wrong and is morally objective"(paraphrasing)

No I didn't. I said if a single moral is objective then God exists.

So is Owning another person not wrong? It's a question that I've asked plenty of times and you've never given a direct answer. Is it morally correct to own another person? Because if morality is objective their isn't a scale difference between torturing children and owning another person.

Some morals are determined by circumstances, which is exactly why I said unjustifiably in my example. Cutting off an arm is moral in a hospital but not in an alley by a thief. That is why I said torturing a child without sufficient justification. There is a context that can effect morality but if within that context it is always right or wrong then God must exist.

 

[1robin]

So the rebellion against God wasn't evil itself; the evil came later?

These very early issues are hard to pin down as they are usually in apocalyptic and archaic language and not the part of the Bible I read much. Satan was not created rebellious but with the capacity to rebel.

God could not be perfectly righteous Himself and create something evil. But He clearly made Satan with a will, and with the ability to choose whether to obey Him or not. Thus while God did not create evil, He allowed for the possibility of evil.
Satan Becomes Evil

 

[1robin]

Does it explain why God still hasn't got rid of it?

Evil will persist until it's purpose if finished.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How did obeying the laws of physics (or the few of them we know of) become the standard of perfection? Are the laws of the quantum less than perfect? Only this percentage of the universe may have been intended to support life. You are making assumptions about what the standard of perfection is, then assuming that God must produce them, then assuming they could not have gone astray as a part of purpose. Why?


I do not claim it is perfect nor need be so I have no need of a standard.

No I didn't. I said if a single moral is objective then God exists.

Some morals are determined by circumstances, which is exactly why I said unjustifiably in my example. Cutting off an arm is moral in a hospital but not in an alley by a thief. That is why I said torturing a child without sufficient justification. There is a context that can effect morality but if within that context it is always right or wrong then God must exist.

Then morality is not objective. If there is a way that it can be justified it's not objective. Justification is a subjective matter. If your arm is cut off by a theif in the alley, what was the immoral part, your arm getting cut off or being robbed?

 

[1robin]

Then morality is not objective. If there is a way that it can be justified it's not objective. Justification is a subjective matter. If your arm is cut off by a theif in the alley, what was the immoral part, your arm getting cut off or being robbed?

I think it would be was not claiming it was. I think torturing a child without justification would always be wrong but that was not what I claimed. I said if you believe there is an actual object moral truth it requires God. Justification is not treated as if it was subjective and with God's existence would not be. Your speaking of apprehension at best not foundation. The immoral part was a lack of justification as determined by God even if not apprehended by us.