"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

Barrington wrote: »

Well, if we continue with the 'Cake or Death' analogy, I'm not choosing death. I don't believe there is any cake. The cake is a lie (:D). I don't believe there is any choice to be made.

God's mercy, or God's justice? I'm not choosing God's justice. I don't believe that there is a God, so I don't believe I have to choose either option.

You will find out at death, whether you are correct or not ... but it will be too late then, to change your mind, if God does exist ... and you have chosen to receive His justice.

I can see why the Creation Science research creates such tensions amongst Atheists and Agnostics ... it not only has very significant implications for real science in this World ... it also has very serious implications for the very precarious position that Atheists find themselves in relation to the next world.

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

So what your saying is god created the perfect mankind, IN full knowledge that they would choose evil ( If he is indeed omnipotent ), and then condemn them to hell ?

Sounds like an Evil bastard to me, are we talking about the same God here ?

If Salvation didn't exist, and wasn't freely available, you might have a point.

God had full knowledge of both the people who would choose to be Saved ... and those who wouldn't ... and He obviously decided that it was worth creating Heaven and Earth for those who freely choose to love Him.
He has decided, in his infinite wisdom, that the rest must be consigned to Hell for eternity ... and the justice in this lies in the fact that they freely choose to place themeslves under His justice, rather than His mercy.

GO_Bear wrote: »

The inherent dichotomy of religion does not allow freedom, only when you rid yourself of it will you stop being a God-adoring automaton.

Are you saying that because somebody's wife loves them, she is an automaton?
She clearly freely loves them and she is behaving as an independent being ... and not an automaton.

Dotto with the Christian relationship with Jesus Christ.

GO_Bear wrote: »

Creating a perfect mankind is the only way that god could be benevolent when internal hell is the price for imperfection

... I keep telling you that God did create a perfect Mankind ... that was also perfectly free to reject Him ... and embrace evil ... and our internal hells are the direct result of this embrace with evil ... and the resultant imperfections that this introduced at the Fall.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

If Salvation didn't exist, an wasn't freely available, you might have a point.

I though Salvation was free all you had to do was repent your sins ?

J C wrote: »

God had full knowledge of both the people who would choose to be Saved ... and those who wouldn't ... and He obviously decided that it was worth creating Heaven and Earth for those who freely choose to love Him.
He has decided, in his infinite wisdom, that the rest must be consigned to Hell for eternity ... and the justice in this lies in the fact that they freely choose to place themeslves under His justice, rather than His mercy.

All of this waffle further illustrates my point, If HE knew that the beings HE created were destined to hell, and chose not to intervene. He cannot be benevolent. Even if just one soul ends up in hell, it is ultimately his doing, as he knows before creation who is doomed.

J C wrote: »

Are you saying that because somebody's wife loves them, she is an automaton?

The two are not comparable

J C wrote: »

She clearly freely loves them and she is behaving as an independent being ... and not an automaton.

Yes but the husband is not her creator nor is he supposedly omnipotent or benevolent

J C wrote: »

... I keep telling you that God did create a perfect Mankind ... that was also perfectly free to reject Him ... and embrace evil ... and our internal hells are the direct result of this embrace with evil ... and the resultant imperfections that this introduced at the Fall.

He created our internal hells, what was stopping him from leaving it out and not dooming people to the worse possible outcome ?

He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent, with the world as we know it

J C

koth wrote: »

you're asking how does evidence of evolution prove evolution?

I am asking for evidence that the spontaneous creation of the CFSI found in living creatures could ever occur.
I'm not asking you to say something like evolution occurred because life exists ... clearly, this is a circular argument that fails miserably ... because Creation by a mind of effectively omniscient proportions fits the facts ... and spontaneous evolution hasn't a shred of evidence for its existence and is merely a 'gap stopper' (until something better is devised) placed within the Atheistic argument that if God doesn't exist and we clearly have Complex Functional Specified Information within living cells that something other than God did it ... and that 'something' was 'Evolution'.

koth wrote: »

I showed you plenty of evidence that shows that evolution occurs, and they you start a butchered version of evolution to argue against the evidence.

You showed me a few limited examples of NS in action on pre-existing CFSI ... but no unambiguous example of how all this CFSI could be spontaneously generated, in the first place.

koth wrote: »

and god allowed all that to happen because he didn't have the patience for his creation that the average parent has for their children.

What can a parent do if a son or daughter deliberately chooses to do evil? ... very little other than pointing out their error, advising them of the consequences ... and praying that they will desist, before it's too late. If it gets really bad they may have to be jailed for life ... and all a loving parent can do is to weep for the terrible loss of human potential involved
God has done all this and more for us already.

koth wrote: »

glad to see we both agree you are arguing a position based on no evidence

Yes, when it comes to Salvation and Evolution these beliefs are held by faith alone ...
... however, when it comes to the Creation of life by an Intelligent Mind, this can be mathematically proven ... and is supported by all of the physical evidence in the World around us.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I am asking for evidence that the spontaneous creation of the CFSI found in living creatures could ever occur.
I'm not asking you to say something like evolution occurred because life exists ... clearly, this is a circular argument that fails miserably ... because Creation by a mind of effectively omniscient proportions fits the facts ... and spontaneous evolution hasn't a shred of evidence for its existence and is merely a 'gap stopper' (until something better is devised) placed within the Atheistic argument that if God doesn't exist and we clearly have Complex Functional Specified Information within living cells that something other than God did it ... and that 'something' was 'Evolution'.

Nonsense. I showed you lots of information about how modern mans ancestor branched into various species, which is evidence of evolution. You then rejected this and re-wrote the history of man and claimed that there has only ever been one species.

You showed me a few limited examples of NS in action on pre-existing CFSI ... but no unambiguous example of how all this CFSI could be spontaneously generated, in the first place.

Now you're complaining I didn't address something that isn't evolution, and therefore you dismiss the evidence of evolution that I posted?

What can a parent do if a son or daughter deliberately chooses to do evil ... very little other than pointing out their error, advising them of the consequences ... and praying that they will desist, before it's too late. If it gets really bad they may have to be jailed for life ... and all a loving parent can do is to weep for the terrible loss of human potential involved
God has done all this and more for us already.

personally, if I had the ability to remove immortality from a child, I can say I would never do it. And definitely not for something so silly as not listening to my advice.

Yes, when it comes to Salvation and Evolution these beliefs are held by faith alone ...
... however, when it comes to the Creation of life by an Intelligent Mind, this can be mathematically proven ... and is supported by all of the physical evidence in the World around us.

Afraid not seeing as you've not produced a shred of evidence.

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

I though Salvation was free all you had to do was repent your sins ?

You also must believe on Jesus Christ.
You seem to think that this is a relatively easy task ... so do you want to be Saved right now?

GO_Bear wrote: »

If HE knew that the beings HE created were destined to hell, and chose not to intervene. He cannot be benevolent. Even if just one soul ends up in hell, it is ultimately his doing, as he knows before creation who is doomed.

Knowing what a free agent will do to themselves doesn't make you responsible for what that agent does to themselves.
God also has intervened to ask everyone to be Saved ... and I am intervening with you, on His behalf right now ... so will you freely choose to be Saved ... or do you prefer to receive God's righteous judgement instead?

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Are you saying that because somebody's wife loves them, she is an automaton?
She clearly freely loves them and she is behaving as an independent being ... and not an automaton.

GO_Bear
The two are not comparable
Yes but the husband is not her creator nor is he supposedly omnipotent or benevolent

The point that I am making is about the relationship between free agents ... it can be love ... or hate ... or simply rejection.
The exact same emotions are possible between Mankind and God because all people are free agents in regard to God.

GO_Bear wrote: »

He created our internal hells, what was stopping him from leaving it out and not dooming people to the worse possible outcome ?

Humans freely choose their own eternal destiny ... and, in large measure, they create and maintain their own internal 'hells'.

GO_Bear wrote: »

He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent, with the world as we know it

I used to think this as well ... but then I discovered Human freedom ... and I found that God is both omnipotent and benevolent ... just and merciful ... wrathful and loving ... and the choice of which aspect we receive is entirely up to us.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

You also must believe on Jesus Christ.
You seem to think that this is a relatively easy task ... so do you want to be Saved right now?

A lot of people find it easy but I chalk that down too insecurity.

J C wrote: »

Knowing what a free agent will do to themselves doesn't make you responsible for what that agent does to themselves.
God also has intervened to ask everyone to be Saved ... and I am intervening with you, on His behalf right now ... so will you freely choose to be Saved ... or do you prefer to receive God's righteous judgement instead?
The point that I am making is about the relationship between free agents ... it can be love ... or hate ... or simply rejection.
The exact same emotions are possible between Mankind and God because all people are free agents in regard to God.Humans freely choose their own eternal destiny ... and, in large measure, they create and maintain their own internal 'hells'.
I used to think this as well ... but then I discovered Human freedom ... and I found that God is both omnipotent and benevolent ... just and merciful ... wrathful and loving ... and the choice of which aspect we receive is entirely up to us.

All of this is irrelevant.

An omniscient being WOULD KNOW before creation, how everything will turn out, therefore because he; created us and gave us free will, knowing full well we would use this free will to doom ourselves, he is only one who is responsible, if he knew before, during and after our creation what would happen, he is merely a malevolent child burning ants with a magnifiying glass.

Sarky

One little thing is puzzling me, J C.

Clearly you know enough about a computer to switch it on, find boards.ie and click the reply button, and you know how to embed Youtube videos, so you must know how THEY work. But you don't appear to have managed to watch so much as one of the videos on this thread which could explain the basics of evolution to the densest five year old child. there must be hundreds of those videos in this thread by now. Not to mention the other thread(s) stretching back, what, five years or more? Between them, I'm fairly sure everything you ever claimed as science has been shown very plainly to be nothing but misinformation and lies.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting you give up your little crusade. It's the most amusing train-wreck I've ever seen, if I have to be totally honest. I'm just wondering- Have you not watched the videos and lied about watching them, or have you watched them and lied about understanding them? At this stage, it can only be one or the other. If it wasn't, I don't think you'd still be here. Or at least you wouldn't be trying to convince scientists and rational people that a centureis-old book of parables and religious intolerance is actually a scientific paper co-authored by your imaginary friend.

So. which is it? Did you lie about watching the videos, or lie about understanding them? Simple question.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... and the reason that death of individuals and species entered the World is because one man and one woman chose to believe Satan's lies and to reject God's truth ...

No mate, that's not the case and for it to have any chance of being the case the you must acknowledge God's inconsistency.

I have seen a number of posters make comparisons between the story of Abraham and the story of Jesus but I think the comparison between Abraham's story and Adam's story is much more interesting.

God gave Adam and Abraham specific instructions.

Angels appear to both Adam (via Eve) and Abraham and reverse God's instuctions.

Both Adam and Abraham fail to carry out God's instructions and instead do as the angels bid them.

Outcomes? For Adam punishment and the eternal despisement by mankind and for Abraham reward and eternal veneration by mankind.

Seems unfair, no?

There is another problem too: The angel who thwarted God in the story of Adam was Lucifer, the most powerful being in all of creation and, apparently, arch-enemy of God. Adam could not have known this without knowledge of good and evil. In Abraham's story it was the angel Michael, a favorite of God, who 'thwarted' God and had Abraham thought of Adam when Michael 'changed the plan' he might have gone ahead and killed Isaac believing Michael's intervention was a further test, a la Adam, of his faith in God.

Do you see?

So, in essence, God is punishing mankind because Eve, the most naive woman in creation, succumbed to Lucifer, the most powerful being in creation.

But that of course assumes that the serpent in Genesis is actually Satan which seems to not be the case since the serpent had offspring which angels cannot do. Perhaps Satan possessed the serpent? Possibly but then why punish the serpent at all? No, God didn't change the devil into a snake, did he? A snake that has baby snakes to bruise the heel of Eve's offspring?

But Christianity requires that Satan brought evil into creation; if the serpent isn't Satan then it is a simple snake that brought evil into the world or, if you still need Adam to be culpable, man did. God's perfect creation, man, invented evil? A design flaw surely. God made a batch of 'bad uns'; the first two were disobedient and the third one was a murderer.

And if that wasn't proof enough of a bad designer; who created Satan?

Really, God needs to take responsibility for His own shortcomings.

If you'd like to have a discussion about 'the origin of specious nonsense' you don't need to consider evolution at all.

J C wrote: »

... and I'm sure that Mariska Hargitay, being a Roman Catholic herself, would also bless you in the name of Jesus Christ.

Haven't you heard, it turns out that 'blessing children' is a euphonism adopted by the RCC?

Genghiz Cohen

Still waiting on that list of Kinds JC.
I'm sure you didn't disappear for like 2 weeks and hope I'd forget

Paparazzo

Anyone know what happened to the author of the book in the OP? His website is still up, but his facebook page is fairly dead. I heard he used his own money to get it published? Has he sold many copies? Might of been a mistake giving a few preview pages on the site.

himnextdoor

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Still waiting on that list of Kinds JC.
I'm sure you didn't disappear for like 2 weeks and hope I'd forget

Please let him deal with angels having offspring first. After all, it's Genesis, the first and most reliable book that J C relies on.

And in general:

I get that J C is an anti-evolutionist but he does try to nail his colours to a mast that has a sail attached to it; let him digest the fact that God is a spiteful and vindictive being who blame His toys, that He created, for losing the game.

J C's 'evidence' against evolution is lacking credibility. He just hasn't realised that his view is based on information that is contradictory to itself and relies on propoganda that is fatally flawed; creation could only have unfolded the way it did and under the auspices of a divine being if that divine being was a vindictive bastard and a divine being that suffered from a bi-polar disorder.

Just because J C doesn't consider his soul valuable enough to make him 'vet' the eternal baby-sitter of that soul doesn't mean he doesn't care about his soul.

J C,

Phospholipids are enough to explain the whole thing. And don't forget that out of the trillions of possible reactions between combinations of elements, trillions do not occur; gold doesn't react with anything, more or less, and equates to a ball that can be taken out of the lottery. There are lots of elements that don't interact, lots of chemical reactions that simply do not take place.

But the lightest, most common elements in the universe are known to form the basis of life and these elements also form phospholipids.

Phospholipids in their most basic form create a boundary between two worlds, the inside and the outside; it's not just about how elements react with each other, it's partly about how the results of interactions interact with each other.

Inside and outside; two worlds of reactions seperated by a phospholipid wall, a wall that mediates between 'inside' and 'outside'. The wall, a membrane which is be beaten from within and without, bombarded by the forces generated from reactions occurring outside the wall and by forces generated by the reactions occurring within it.

It's about rhythm dude; two drummers beating indepentantly will generate more patterns than a single drummer could beat through progressive change. And there are as many drummers as there are phospholipids.

All you need is one algorithm that could result in a singularity. Just one reaction that causes 'collection'; one combination generated at some point in an infinite amount of time; just one rhythm that the universe can dance to and you have life.

Not a request, no meaning; just a rhythm the elements can dance to.

And life is nothing more than elements 'dancing'.

Genghiz Cohen

himnextdoor wrote: »

Please let him deal with angels having offspring first. After all, it's Genesis, the first and most reliable book that J C relies on.

I think you'll find, I was here first

himnextdoor

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I think you'll find, I was here first

LOL. I don't think it really matters; he'll just ignore us both.

robindch

Paparazzo wrote: »

Anyone know what happened to the author of the book in the OP?

He dropped by the World Atheist Conference a few weeks back. Said hello to him and said I'd enjoyed the book, but he didn't remember me as one of the only people who'd bought it last September or whenever. Felt slightly disappointed by that...

Paparazzo wrote: »

I heard he used his own money to get it published? Has he sold many copies?

The rumor at the launch was that a family member had paid for it through one of the local vanity publishers (name on the back of the book, afair).

Still this thread is number four when you google "Origin of specious nonsense", so all is not lost!

If you're watching -- Hi, John!

Paparazzo

I reckon his garage has pallet loads of books in it. Pity he stopped his youtube videos, they were great

GO_Bear

Still waiting for an answer to my question about omnipotence and omni-benevolence

Mistress 69

Sarky wrote: »

Yes. I doubt Father Dagon is terribly impressed with your rape of science, circular logic and outright lies. Don't be surprised if your dreams become very interesting in the near future. Ia Dagon! Ia Cthulhu!

Sarky wrote: »

Your false god's bleating is nothing compared to the power of the Oaths. But deep down, you already knew that, and you cling to your beliefs because you just can't bear to face the truth alone.

I have eternity awaiting me. You? Unless you can realise the truth, and cast away your comfortable lies without it breaking your very self, unless you let Father Dagon embrace you, you have nothing to look forward to but shattered dreams and dust.

WTF...Is this stuff for real or are you taking the mickey?

Sarky

Boards.ie wouldn't give me a forum for the Order of Dagon if it weren't real, would they?

Mistress 69

Sarky wrote: »

Boards.ie wouldn't give me a forum for the Order of Dagon if it weren't real, would they?

I Should have wiki'd it first.. everybody is entiled to play around with funny little fictitous cults :pac:

Penn

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I Should have wiki'd it first.. everybody is entiled to play around with funny little fictitous cults :pac:

Amen sister!

Sarky

You've already showed a hell of a lot more fact-finding prowess than J C.

Funny fictitious little cults are all well and good. It's when they build churches, take your money, rape children and believe themselves above all law, denouncing all reason and evidence that the problems begin.

Mistress 69

Sarky wrote: »

You've already showed a hell of a lot more fact-finding prowess than J C.

Funny fictitious little cults are all well and good. It's when they build churches, take your money, rape children and believe themselves above all law, denouncing all reason and evidence that the problems begin.

Millions of people worldwide would dissagree with your view that they believe in a fictitous cult, but please ... another days debate. As for the issues of child abuse, we are all agreed as to how we feel on that issue.

Genghiz Cohen

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Millions of people worldwide would dissagree with your view that they believe in a fictitous cult, but please ... another days debate. As for the issues of child abuse, we are all agreed as to how we feel on that issue.

Nobody thinks they belong to a cult.

Mistress 69

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Nobody thinks they belong to a cult.

Agreed. Just on a quick search the following could produce enough material for lots of mud slinging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

himnextdoor

Did you ever notice that God as characterised in the Bible has the psychological profile of a homicidal paranoid schizophrenic?

Of course you did but don't you think it's interesting that people like Herod, Alexander the Great, Caligula, David and a whole host of other megalomaniacs exhibit exactly the same characteristics?

It's almost as if God was designed to flatter kings and emperors. Herod must have felt cosy knowing that God was a bit like him, murdering children and whatnot, sacrificing members of His own family etc.

In other words, the Bible was written as a warning; 'If you don't do his will, some mad king or emperor will kill you'. Obviously they couldn't put it quite like that or they would have been killed so they replaced king or emperor with God and replaced 'mad' with 'merciful'.

But it was a warning; if you want to live in peace then accept the order of how things are and submit to the will of God which did in fact reflect the real life perils of day to day living 4,000-years ago. You could be smote for anything.

So, what I'm suggesting is that the Bible is simply a description of the kind of regimes enforced by the rulers of that time.

And to give it religious relevance, God was slightly elevated above kings because He created the domain to be divided into kingdoms.

So, right there, a tool to control the masses and a restraint on the king who wants to know more about this God; they could be great friends.

The origin of specious nonsense? Someone discovered a way that they could both appease and protect themselves from kings.

liamw

GO_Bear wrote: »

An omniscient being WOULD KNOW before creation, how everything will turn out, therefore because he; created us and gave us free will, knowing full well we would use this free will to doom ourselves, he is only one who is responsible, if he knew before, during and after our creation what would happen, he is merely a malevolent child burning ants with a magnifiying glass.

---

Wrong! You Unsaved Moron!

Your score is now: 0

---

OK

---

GO_Bear

liamw wrote: »

---

Wrong! You Unsaved Moron!

Your score is now: 0

---

OK

---

himnextdoor

GO_Bear wrote: »

Still waiting for an answer to my question about omnipotence and omni-benevolence

I reckon that if God is truly omniscient then the moment He created existence He would have walked away from it, whistling as He went, as if He hadn't done anything at all.

Would you want to take responsibility for this mess? 'The nasty angel did it and ran away; it wasn't my fault.' would be my claim too.

GO_Bear

himnextdoor wrote: »

I reckon that if God is truly omniscient then the moment He created existence He would have walked away from it, whistling as He went, as if He hadn't done anything at all.

Would you want to take responsibility for this mess? 'The nasty angel did it and ran away; it wasn't my fault.' would be my claim too.

Like a person who omits their D+ in pass French from their academic CV !

But I am still waiting for J C to address the point that God cannot be all powerful and all loving

No doubt he has receded to Answersingenesis.org in search of a retort