Your Best Argument for God's Existence

[Deeje]

No, I did not originate by myself.

I didn't either......funny that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, I did not originate by myself.

Of course not. We all originated from cells. The glint in your papa's and mama's eye as biology does it's thing.

 

[Valjean]

Tell me, what information systems originate by themselves? Can't find any, can you?

DNA?

 

[viole]

1 and B i guess. Lets go with that.

Ok, so, why did you ask if errors cannot produce information?

It is very easy to imagine how random errors combined with a selection process and a way to make those errors persistent, can create information easily. That is just a variant of my previous example with that string of bits.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No, im very versed in the bible. Ive compared verses and ive looked at those so called contradictions.



No, not convenience. Not at all.



Its not whim.



Case by case.

I know why God authorized the genecide and slavery. Do you? I havent stated why yet because i wanna first see if you or skeptic" knows first. If you dont know, then that tells me your rejection is from emotionalism and not intellectualism.

You guys are complicating a very easy thing.

God did not authorize those athrocities. The ones who made Him up did, and were looking from some convincing argument why they did them.

It happens all the time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

That is true, the Bible was written for another age in history, not for current times, and that is why another revelation from God was required later. First, we had the Qur'an, and then we had the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213​

Yup, Christians are moral relativists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

If all you ever heard was Christendom's version of Christianity, then that doesn't surprise me. Its the reason why I left the church system. But I never threw the baby out with the bathwater, like so many do, assuming that God is the founder of Christendom. Sorry, it was the other guy. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42)



You really think that is what makes someone a Christian? Not even close. (Matthew 22:36-39) You don't let go of someone you love and believe in, just because others tell you lies about them. If you do, you are as bad as the liars.



Genocide and slavery? I have heard you mention these before as if God condones these things.
When humans do these things, they are viewed as negative, but when you delve into the Bible, you find explanations for why they were practiced in ancient times....which is NOT the same as excuses.

Humans have no power over life and death. If a human takes a life, then he cannot bring that life back. Not so with the Creator. Think of one of those acts of "genocide" like the flood of Noah's day as an example. What was God's intention in wiping out the world of that time? Demonic intervention had accelerated violence and immorality in the world of mankind so rapidly, that the whole earth was "ruined" in God's site. (Genesis 6:11-12) He was not bringing to ruin something that wasn't already ruined. Noah is called a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5) so all the time he was constructing the ark (probably decades) he preached to the people about righteousness....but not a soul responded. Only Noah was seen to merit God's favor. (Genesis 6:5-8) But even he had to obey his God in order to be saved.

What about the children who perished in the flood? Were they innocent victims of God's punishment? Not really, because they were already victims of their parent's bad example, and also the immoral environment in which they were being raised. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah also reflect this situation.

Every person who heard Noah preach or who saw the structure that he was building, knew why he was doing it. But they chose to ridicule him and ignore him. If God had spared that world, then imagine what it would be like living today if it had continued? Its bad enough now as we see the world again sinking to low levels of morality and godlessness. No one is safe even walking the streets any more. No one knows when the next terrorist bomb will explode while they are enjoying their morning coffee.

And if God had spared those thousands of children, who was going to look after them all? Wasn't it better to take them all together so that in the coming resurrection, parents and their children will be brought back to life together, but in a different world, in a much better environment, more conducive to learning God's ways and adopting his standards? I believe that they will be given that opportunity.

People tend to treat God as if he was human with human limitations. He sees into the future and plans his long-range actions on the final outcome.

Slavery in Israel was much more like employment. It was the ancient Jewish equivalent of social security.

You cannot put today's standards on yesterday's attitudes. Without slavery, many Israelites would have had no way to pay themselves out of debt. Throwing a man in jail took him away from his family who depended on him to feed and house them. Being able to put a child into service also allowed a father to care for the rest of his family. Unlike today's kids, children back then worked to serve the interests of the whole family. It was why a bride price was to be paid by taking a girl away from her family...to compensate them for the loss of her services.
It was not hard labor under a whip, but it was expected that a slave could be punished for neglecting his assigned job. Don't forget that this was the same society that could put a drunken good-for-nothing son to death for abusing his parents.

Humans have used corporal punishment for centuries without thinking twice about it. In western society it was quite acceptable to take a cane to a errant school student, or for a father to take his son down behind the woodshed for a good whooping if he had misbehaved.

Times change and we are no longer permitted to do that....but we look back on the old days and think it was a bit barbaric now. But at the time no one thought twice about it.

Yup, another instance of moral relativism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

In the case of the genecide the land was stolen. It was alotted to shem (isreal) in noahs day. It got stolen generations later. God was against steeling. So he had isreal take back what was theres.

So, this genocide people think isreal was doing the steeling, when the oposite was the case, they wer taking back what was stolen from them.

That does not justify the indiscriminate and murderous slaying of women and children. Nor the subjugation of human beings into slavery.

And that Guy is your moral compass, right? You would be better off by using Hannibal the Cannibal instead.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jollybear]

Ok, so, why did you ask if errors cannot produce information?

It is very easy to imagine how random errors combined with a selection process and a way to make those errors persistent, can create information easily. That is just a variant of my previous example with that string of bits.

Ciao

- viole

I still dont get it. Are you not assuming DNA info will create this info over time randomely by natural selection?

Randome mutations in DNA destroy information.

Heres a illustration. If i type this message and do a typo, it will misspell a word. That destroys the info, not builds it.

Oh you like my bunny by the way? I did find him after all in the yard (kidding).

 

[Jollybear]

That does not justify the indiscriminate and murderous slaying of women and children. Nor the subjugation of human beings into slavery.

And that Guy is your moral compass, right? You would be better off by using Hannibal the Cannibal instead.

Ciao

- viole

Well, you got stolen land. Plus, you got baby sacrifice cult practices going on and other evil things too. Plus you got angel human hybrids as well. Plus, God owns the earth. Plus, isreal needs to take care of there own babies, so its not fair they take on others. But, despite that, they still let some live. You also got to kill the babies because if you dont then they grow up, find out you killed there parrents, then you got another war on your hands.

Think of it like this: you got a cockrouch infestation in your house, what do you do? Show compassion and say "ah, they need a life too" or do you wipe them out? Or mayby just wipe out the grownups and let the babies live? Lol. No, you gotta wipe them all out.

For all those reasons why shouldnt the genecide happen?

Of course its gonna look ugly. But, this genocide was one huge justice blow.

 

[Valjean]

I still dont get it. Are you not assuming DNA info will create this info over time randomely by natural selection?

There are random mutations and there is natural selection. The two are different and the latter isn't random.

Randome mutations in DNA destroy information.

Destroy it or just change it?

Heres a illustration. If i type this message and do a typo, it will misspell a word. That destroys the info, not builds it.

same amount of info/code. You've just impaired the gene's expression -- or maybe improved it. Time will tell.

 

[Jollybear]

There are random mutations and there is natural selection. The two are different and the latter isn't random.
Destroy it or just change it?
same amount of info/code. You've just impaired the gene's expression -- or maybe improved it. Time will tell.

If i do a mild typo, you could still read it. But if its a major one, youd ask me to repeat what i said.

But, a typo doesnt explain the origin of the information. It also does not create information, it can change or destroy it, but create it? Plus, what about the origin?

 

[viole]

I still dont get it. Are you not assuming DNA info will create this info over time randomely by natural selection?

Randome mutations in DNA destroy information.
Yes
Heres a illustration. If i type this message and do a typo, it will misspell a word. That destroys the info, not builds it.

Oh you like my bunny by the way? I did find him after all in the yard (kidding).

This is the basic of biological evolution. So, maybe 150 years old successful scrutiny of the theory might indicate that obvious defeaters are not present. I wonder how creationist insist in seeing obvious defeaters, when the only thing that is obvious is their ignorance of the subject.

In your case, you are right. In most cases the random error will generate a defective phenotype. However, random means that a change might be favorable. Why not? It is random, and if the set of possible changes includes a small improvement, then it is only a question of time before a random error activates it. Because random means equally distributed over the possible effects on the phenotype.

If a nice cake recipe gets a printing error that slighly change the amount of one ingredient, it could theoretically be that the resulting cake is better. And if a lot of people like that new cake, then the priniting error is kept and used for all other printings of the recepy. I think that such serendipitous events were common in gastronomy. For instance, Champagne originated from an undesigned accident.

It is the same with DNA. If the change is favorable, then it entails that the corresponding phenotype is “fitter” than its partners. It might find food slightly easier than his partners, be slightly better at escaping predators and so. And then, since the error is now part of its DNA, it gets transmited to the progeny until the old DNA is replaced with the new. Like the cake recipe.

By the way, the complex structure we observe today is the cumulation of naturally seleceted and preserved errors over the eons.

No designer reqired.

Your bunny is very sweet. But do not expect me to be softened by that, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Well, you got stolen land. Plus, you got baby sacrifice cult practices going on and other evil things too. Plus you got angel human hybrids as well. Plus, God owns the earth. Plus, isreal needs to take care of there own babies, so its not fair they take on others. But, despite that, they still let some live. You also got to kill the babies because if you dont then they grow up, find out you killed there parrents, then you got another war on your hands.

Think of it like this: you got a cockrouch infestation in your house, what do you do? Show compassion and say "ah, they need a life too" or do you wipe them out? Or mayby just wipe out the grownups and let the babies live? Lol. No, you gotta wipe them all out.

For all those reasons why shouldnt the genecide happen?

Of course its gonna look ugly. But, this genocide was one huge justice blow.

So, if one of the ancestors of Sitting Bull takes hold of some nuclear weapons and blows all major American Cities to Kingdome come.... do you think he would have a moral justification?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, so, why did God authorize it then?

Well, I don't believe gods exist, so I think that men "authorized" such things, and I think that's obvious.

But that's a great question. Why would a loving god authorize horribly immoral actions? I think the answer is that such a god would not. A malevolent god might though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, im very versed in the bible. Ive compared verses and ive looked at those so called contradictions.



No, not convenience. Not at all.



Its not whim.



Case by case.

I know why God authorized the genecide and slavery. Do you? I havent stated why yet because i wanna first see if you or skeptic" knows first. If you dont know, then that tells me your rejection is from emotionalism and not intellectualism.

My morality is based on reasoning and logic, rather than the commands of some invisible deity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If all you ever heard was Christendom's version of Christianity, then that doesn't surprise me. Its the reason why I left the church system. But I never threw the baby out with the bathwater, like so many do, assuming that God is the founder of Christendom. Sorry, it was the other guy. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42)



You really think that is what makes someone a Christian? Not even close. (Matthew 22:36-39) You don't let go of someone you love and believe in, just because others tell you lies about them. If you do, you are as bad as the liars.



Genocide and slavery? I have heard you mention these before as if God condones these things.
When humans do these things, they are viewed as negative, but when you delve into the Bible, you find explanations for why they were practiced in ancient times....which is NOT the same as excuses.

Humans have no power over life and death. If a human takes a life, then he cannot bring that life back. Not so with the Creator. Think of one of those acts of "genocide" like the flood of Noah's day as an example. What was God's intention in wiping out the world of that time? Demonic intervention had accelerated violence and immorality in the world of mankind so rapidly, that the whole earth was "ruined" in God's site. (Genesis 6:11-12) He was not bringing to ruin something that wasn't already ruined. Noah is called a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5) so all the time he was constructing the ark (probably decades) he preached to the people about righteousness....but not a soul responded. Only Noah was seen to merit God's favor. (Genesis 6:5-8) But even he had to obey his God in order to be saved.

What about the children who perished in the flood? Were they innocent victims of God's punishment? Not really, because they were already victims of their parent's bad example, and also the immoral environment in which they were being raised. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah also reflect this situation.

Every person who heard Noah preach or who saw the structure that he was building, knew why he was doing it. But they chose to ridicule him and ignore him. If God had spared that world, then imagine what it would be like living today if it had continued? Its bad enough now as we see the world again sinking to low levels of morality and godlessness. No one is safe even walking the streets any more. No one knows when the next terrorist bomb will explode while they are enjoying their morning coffee.

And if God had spared those thousands of children, who was going to look after them all? Wasn't it better to take them all together so that in the coming resurrection, parents and their children will be brought back to life together, but in a different world, in a much better environment, more conducive to learning God's ways and adopting his standards? I believe that they will be given that opportunity.

People tend to treat God as if he was human with human limitations. He sees into the future and plans his long-range actions on the final outcome.

Slavery in Israel was much more like employment. It was the ancient Jewish equivalent of social security.

You cannot put today's standards on yesterday's attitudes. Without slavery, many Israelites would have had no way to pay themselves out of debt. Throwing a man in jail took him away from his family who depended on him to feed and house them. Being able to put a child into service also allowed a father to care for the rest of his family. Unlike today's kids, children back then worked to serve the interests of the whole family. It was why a bride price was to be paid by taking a girl away from her family...to compensate them for the loss of her services.
It was not hard labor under a whip, but it was expected that a slave could be punished for neglecting his assigned job. Don't forget that this was the same society that could put a drunken good-for-nothing son to death for abusing his parents.

Humans have used corporal punishment for centuries without thinking twice about it. In western society it was quite acceptable to take a cane to a errant school student, or for a father to take his son down behind the woodshed for a good whooping if he had misbehaved.

Times change and we are no longer permitted to do that....but we look back on the old days and think it was a bit barbaric now. But at the time no one thought twice about it.

You and I have already had more than one go-around on this.

Like I said, excuses ... It's not really slavery, it's indentured servitude ... nonsense. God just had to kill all the children .... Gimme a break. It's exactly what I said - you have to justify the barbarism you see in the Bible the best you can because you have to accept that it's moral, no matter your feelings on the subject. Well, I don't.

Yes, we look back on the days when we used to beat children as barbaric. I look back on Biblical times in the same way. Stoning people is barbaric. Slavery is barbaric. Genocide is barbaric.

And humans do have power over life and death. We can take life, and we can also save life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I did not originate by myself.

He didn't say you originated yourself. He said you were biologically born.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, you got stolen land. Plus, you got baby sacrifice cult practices going on and other evil things too. Plus you got angel human hybrids as well. Plus, God owns the earth. Plus, isreal needs to take care of there own babies, so its not fair they take on others. But, despite that, they still let some live. You also got to kill the babies because if you dont then they grow up, find out you killed there parrents, then you got another war on your hands.

Think of it like this: you got a cockrouch infestation in your house, what do you do? Show compassion and say "ah, they need a life too" or do you wipe them out? Or mayby just wipe out the grownups and let the babies live? Lol. No, you gotta wipe them all out.

For all those reasons why shouldnt the genecide happen?

Of course its gonna look ugly. But, this genocide was one huge justice blow.

Why does your god require human beings to carry out genocide on his behalf?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

DNA?

Oh...DNA originated by itself? I must’ve missed the peer-reviewed paper.