The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

Would that be the penalty that he imposes on us? The one that is due as a result of the nature he knowingly and purposely instilled in us? That penalty?

No, the penalty that man brought on himself by disobeying God.

But man disobeyed god as a result of his sinful nature, right? That same sinful nature that god put in us to begin with, right? So dont we have a situation were god knowingly creates everyone with the ability to sin, the inclination to sin and the destiny to sin, and then punishes us when we do?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Started with Adam & Eve and continues with everyone since - except One who was born without a sinful nature.

That One came to rescue us from the consequences of our sin, by bearing the penalty Himself. He gives salvation to all who turn from their sins and trust in Him. That salvation means not only freedom from the power of sin in this life, but freedom from the penalty and presence of sin in the next.

But wasn't that "One" also the one who decided we need punishment because of sins, the sins he created us to do? So didn't that "One" come here to rescue us from himself?

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

...it is the penalty that God's perfect JUSTICE imposes on us

Where is the "perfect justice" in punishing someone for doing something that you purposely made them do?

marco_polo

robindch wrote: »

I'm afraid it does. If they start with a conclusion and refuse to test it -- as they're not permitted to do by AiG's employment conditions -- then they're not doing science. It really is that simple.I've already read their stuff and (as I've pointed out before time and time again) it's the kind of amusingly dumb rubbish that a well-informed ten-year old can rip to shreds.

Flat-earther-level stuff. It's embarrassingly stupid.

An illuminating example of the typical ID/creationist reponse to contradictory evidence.

*Delusion*

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/dembski-weasels.html

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Where is the "perfect justice" in punishing someone for doing something that you purposely made them do?

...God didn't purposely make Adam and Eve sin ... they CHOSE to do so.

Similarly, we sin as a result of a combination of our free will and our fallen nature ... transmitted to us from our common ancestor's Adam and Eve.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think I pointed it out before, but it's worth repeating: AiG is a religious organisation. It does science so that it may show that true science does not conflict with the Bible. All its members have to agree with its religious basis. But that does not stop them being scientists or doing proper science.

If not that, then what is stopping them, since they aren't doing any?

wolfsbane wrote: »

They do not offer any religious dogma as a part of their scientific argument.

What is their scientific argument?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...God didn't purposely make Adam and Eve sin ... they CHOSE to do so.

Similarly, we sin as a result of a combination of our free will and our fallen nature ... transmitted to us from our common ancestor's Adam and Eve.

God created them knowing that they would do this. He could have not. It stands to reason then that this was the purpose of their creation. Otherwise God made a mistake.

pagancornflake

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are slipping from atheistic evolution - which entails the concept of a materialistic universe - to just the mechanics of biological evolution. The latter would tell us little about our nature - we could be God's chosen but have come by this means. Which is why I have been critiquing atheistic evolution. It informs us we are nothing more than matter, and rationally, of no intrinsic value. You and several others have agreed.

To begin with, abtract materialism does not imply that we have no "intrinsic" value, merely that we are the ones who define it. And we can, quite effectivley. Furthermore, even if these definitions are not entirely ubiquitous, they still have just as much (if not more) of a degree of utility than theistic intrinsic values since they are tangibly based, and hence appeal to our recognition of sensible properties of objects.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Atheists may invent a high value on human life to suit their emotional needs, but they may not rationally claim their morality is any better than one which puts no value on it.

Asinine. Values of human life are contingent on their utility. Doctrines which place little or no value on human life are always self defeating and unjustifiable.

As a further point (and I'm sure you are well aware), one does not need to completely reject the idea of the trancendental to assent to materialism. The principles that govern our morality and political ethics can be rendered in reductionist empirical principles, and as a deist myself, I see no merit in arguing that a trancendental generator acts as a surce of these principles.

pagancornflake

J C wrote: »

....YOUR belief that YOUR life has value is entirely SUBJECTIVE
...and you have no means of OBJECTIVELY supporting such a belief in the absence of EXTERNAL i.e. Divine confirmation.

Similarly, your divine justification of principles is subjective. Belief in a deity does not derive from a pure tangible source, but is inferred rationally. Rational justification in humans is subjective (as we all know), as it is informed and biased by a lifetime of experiences which serve as a context.
Furthermore, cohesive social principles (such as the one proposed by the guy you were answering) are not contingent on the trancendental for their support, as they use comparison with others and tangible reciprocal determinism to act as the EXTERNAL that you speak of.

J C wrote: »

....you're belief is a bit like a Banker who believes that he 'shouldn't get out of bed' for anything less than €1 million!!!!
....while this might make sense to him... it doesn't necessarily make sense to anybody else!!!!!:D

No, the bankers principle may have utility for himself, but not for others. The banker (and yourself) must realise that this principle will fall if it is generalised, since the accruement of the million is contingent on those who work for him, and if they all adopt this idea, then no-one will benefit from it. Conversley, in the example of a tangible principle offered by our friend, it is viable if and only if it is mutually contingent and expressed.

J C wrote: »

Equally, your statement that "if my human life has value, other human life must also have value" ... doesn't have any objective underpinning .... as all of the victims of Genocide and Warfare down the years, would confirm .... if they weren't actually DEAD!!!

But is this a failure of justification, or a failure due to circumvention of ideal principles due to radical nationalism and other socio-economic factors? The objective underpinning of a theist morality has no utility in practice. And do not try to pin the holocaust and Stalinist purges on atheism- they were the result of authoritarian nationalism, which is contingent on the dictator being the only authority (not the church etc.), but to say that such nationalism follows from atheism is a blatant non-sequiter.

I would also like to add that as of 2007 (current figures pending release), Christian innmates constitute 76% of the federal prison population in the US, according to the federal bureau of prisons (note that even in the predominantly Christian nation, this is a disproportionate amount). Conversley, atheists make up only .6% (the atheist population of the US is estimated at 6-14%).

Strike one (two three four?...)for trancendental idealism.

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

kiffer said:

If you had carefully followed what I said, you would have seen I agree that the rational atheist could go either way. He could be a promoter of humanism, or a sociopath. The essential point is that he would be making the choice in the light of his perceived truth (materialism). That is, he knows man is without any value, but he may choose to pretend he believes otherwise in order to achieve his goals. Maybe he just wants a peaceful life and reckons that best achieved by being a humanist and promoting it. Or he may want to rule a country and thinks the image of a caring benefactor will get him there.

Alternatively, he may fancy his chances as a conqueror and start up a party based on the conquest and enslavement of the weak. Or he may have more modest goals - the torture and rape of abducted men, women or children.

All of these ends are rational choices for the one who knows we are only material and there is no God.

...

I'm glad to refer you to the Creationist sites where your scientific arguments are challenged,

As I said, "you've been unable to find any real world evidence for creationism that hasn't been easily shown to be full of failures of logic, failure of basic rigor or containing shocking misunderstandings various topics." Unless you're holding out on us and have some secret creationist site that you've yet to link to my point stands...

and to JC's sterling work on this thread.

Sterling work? I don't think there is anything that I could say here that would not be taken as Ad Hominem...

You of course reject their arguments - but they likewise reject your's. The issue is who is right. I know who is right by the revelation I have from God's word - but there are others who are confused. It is for them especially I engage here, to show them there is an alternative to the scientism falsely calling itself science.

I have never heard any creationist make that case. References?

Really? I'm surprised to hear that you've never heard any creationist saying that...
Most of the young YE creationists that I met and conversed with in the '90s held this position (or the God testing our faith position), sadly this puts this in to the realms of personal correspondence... Google turns up very few people making this claim... perhaps they have been selected against over the last 15 years... ho ho ho.

That is what I have always encountered in my reading of creation material, and I've been doing so since the mid-1970's.

Creationism in the '70s accepted speciation?
Right... so now we've narrowed down your problem with evolution entirely to timescale and "flood geology"...

Quite so - but you have no rational reason for believing in such a morality. You may choose to adopt it, to suit your needs, but you cannot defend it as any better than that of those who murder for fun. Your only rational defence for not practicing eugenics is the unforseen consequences. And that has to be offset against both the forseen and unforeseen consequences of allowing the unfit to live and breed.

I disagree, also has nothing to do with the topic at hand, evolution vs creation.

Yes, it would be good for you guys to really think this through, maybe in a place where you would not feel the need to be so defensive.

Yup it's a topic with plenty of room for debate... but also has nothing to do with the topic.

That's not subjective - if one accepts the concept of the Creator God, the One who is the standard of all that is moral and the One who has exclusive rights over His creation - then one will see He is not limited in His rights to discipline, the way sinful man is.

:-) so morals are subjective, based on whether you are God or not? What about ... no... this is miles off topic...

AtomicHorror

OMG!

Turns out we're ALL WRONG.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/03/new_work_on_lateral_transfer_s.php

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

OMG!

Turns out we're ALL WRONG.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/03/new_work_on_lateral_transfer_s.php

Starting early this year I see ... :pac:

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Turns out we're ALL WRONG.

90 minutes early, eh?

A beer to the first person who finds some witless creationist reporting this as "Scientific Truth"!

postcynical

Very good. Excellent theme to work on for this kind of thing. Comments section gave it away though:o.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Starting early this year I see ... :pac:

robindch wrote: »

90 minutes early, eh?

Not where this was originally posted! I bring you news... FROM THE FUTURE.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

It seems that the small matter of my 15 questions (14769) and your 21 (14748) questions has still not been resolved. I posted 15 questions, you had replied and I had refuted your replies. So I'm waiting to hear counter arguments there. You also posted your own 21 or so questions from way back when which I have replied to in full. Waiting for your rebuttals there.

I also dismantled your probability argument as nonsense and would be most interested to hear your defence.

It has now been many weeks and you've not addressed any of this.

....I just don't have the time or the inclination .... what I have written, I have written....and the fact that you will not accept that God designed you doesn't invalidate the fact that He DID!!!:pac::):D

....look, it ultimately comes down to the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence or logic supporting the idea that genome information can be spontaneously increased by mutation or any other evolutionary process ....even the Great Prof Dawkins couldn't give an example of where this occurs!!!:D

J C, as you're back from avoiding the tough questions again another long holiday, perhaps you could now address the above posts.

J C wrote: »

.....and for those of you who still believe that if you stick a feather in the ground, it will (eventually) grow a hen .... after billions of years (that don't actually exist) you can get disabused of this notion here
http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again

Prof Dawkins was asked to give JUST ONE EXAMPLE of an observed increase in genetic information via an evolutionary process ... and he was unable to come up with any example ... he then gathered his thoughts, and answered a different question ... and in the process he confirmed that he believed that Evolution DIDN'T involve fish evolving into reptiles nor reptiles evolving into mammals.

We've been over this before.

1. Fully define what "genetic information" means.

2. Define how it can be reduced and (hypothetically if you like) increased and how we would test either case.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

OMG!

Turns out we're ALL WRONG.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/03/new_work_on_lateral_transfer_s.php

Well better than teh crap AiG have been peddling. I'm sold.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

God created them knowing that they would do this. He could have not. It stands to reason then that this was the purpose of their creation. Otherwise God made a mistake.

...knowing that somebody is going to do something is not the same as causing them to do it!!!:D

Being omniscient, God knew that Adam and Eve would abuse their free-will and sin ... but God's purpose in creating them wasn't so that they would sin against Him ... but so that they would freely love Him.:D

J C

Wolfsbane wrote:

....and to JC's sterling work on this thread.

Sterling work? I don't think there is anything that I could say here that would not be taken as Ad Hominem...

...I'm in the Eurozone myself!!!!:pac::):D

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

...knowing that somebody is going to do something is not the same as causing them to do it!!!:D

Being omniscient, God knew that Adam and Eve would abuse their free-will and sin ... but God's purpose in creating them wasn't so that they would sin against Him ... but so that they would freely love Him.:D

Because god, in his omnipotence and omniscient, chose not to prevent their sinning, he caused it. Its an inescapable condition of being completely omnipotent and omniscient that the outcome of every action depends on god allowing it to occur or not.

marco_polo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C, as you're back from avoiding the tough questions again another long holiday, perhaps you could now address the above posts.



We've been over this before.

1. Fully define what "genetic information" means.

2. Define how it can be reduced and (hypothetically if you like) increased and how we would test either case.

J C wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...knowing that somebody is going to do something is not the same as causing them to do it!!!:D

No, but creating them and the universe, while knowing what they are going to do, is.

If you drop a stone on the ground you are not directly effecting the stone at all when it hits the ground itself, but still caused that event to happen. Once you let the stone go the stone can do nothing but hit the ground. Once God created the universe Adam and Eve could do nothing except sin against God.

J C wrote: »

Being omniscient, God knew that Adam and Eve would abuse their free-will and sin ... but God's purpose in creating them wasn't so that they would sin against Him ... but so that they would freely love Him.:D

That makes God rather dumb since you are claiming he was trying to do something that he knew wouldn't happen.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because god, in his omnipotence and omniscient, chose not to prevent their sinning, he caused it. Its an inescapable condition of being completely omnipotent and omniscient that the outcome of every action depends on god allowing it to occur or not.

He allowed it to occur - but that does not mean He caused it to occur.

You may allow your neighbour to slap you on the face, when you could have stopped him by kicking him on the testicles. Did you really cause him to slap you, or was it his sole guilt?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

He allowed it to occur - but that does not mean He caused it to occur.

No because God (supposedly) created the universe and everything in it. He created the universe where this would happen. He doesn't have to do anything at the moment it is happening because he had already started the chain of events.

He had to create some form of universe and choose to created this one where this would happen. He caused it to occur through the creation of the universe in which it would.

Again it is like dropping a rock knowing that it will hit the ground. You don't have to do anything the moment it hits, but you cause it to happen by dropping it. If you drop it over someone's head you do nothing the moment it hits their head but you caused that to happen. You could have dropped the rock some where else. You drop the rock over someone's head you cause a rock to hit their head. It isn't that you allowed the rock to hit them in the head. You caused it. The rock is simply doing what it was always going to do.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You may allow your neighbour to slap you on the face, when you could have stopped him by kicking him on the testicles. Did you really cause him to slap you, or was it his sole guilt?

Doesn't apply because you did not created the universe or your neighbour.

Say your neighbour is very jealous. You tell him someone has slept with his wife. He storms in to a room with a gun and he is going to kill who ever it was. You know he will do it, and he asks you who it was. You say "Jim", knowing beyond all doubt that your neighbour will kill Jim if you say it was Jim.

You caused Jim's death. Not only did you set these events in motion knowing what would happen by telling your neighbour someone slept with his wife knowing it would send him into a rage, you picked Jim to die. Yes it is your neighbour who chooses to kill him but you know beyond all doubt that he will choose to kill him if you tell him. There is no unknown, no probabilities.

You could have not told your neighbour someone slept with his wife. You could have picked Paul or Harry or Jack. You didn't, you picked Jim knowing that once you did nothing but Jim's death would happen. What your neighbour does is set, as set as a rock dropped from your hand falling on someone's head. You know he will shoot someone.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Peer review? Burden of proof? Assessing all of the evidence? Seeking answers?

Seems to qualify in all those - but you won't accept their peer-review journals, of course.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems to qualify in all those - but you won't accept their peer-review journals, of course.

And I thought we were making progress, wolfsbane. The journal is irrelevant - where is the creation science? A single example, please. :pac:

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Not sure what you think I agreed to. To me a phrase like "atheist evolution" is like saying atheist cooking or atheist dry cleaning.

Most of us are aware that evolutionists come in two groups - atheists and theists. The latter believe God initiated and intervenes in the process of evolution, while the former do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But it does compel us to regard all things as having no intrinsic value above anything else.
But so does Christianity? So what is the difference?

Nonsense. God values man far above the rest of the biosphere, and the biosphere above the inanimate world.

You only believe things have value not because they have intrinsic value but because God is of the opinion they have value and you have chosen to respect God's opinion.

Ah, I see what you mean - God's value is just as subjective as your's. That is correct only if your reality is true. If Christianity's is true, then God creates the intrinsic values. He doesn't have an opinion, He has the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Atheists may invent a high value on human life to suit their emotional needs, but they may not rationally claim their morality is any better than one which puts no value on it
Why not? How is that any different to claiming that God's morality is any better than anyone else's?

Rationally, if God is real and is who He claims to be, the author of all meaning/reality, then His morality is the only objective one. If your system is real and matter is all, then rationally there is no objective morality.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

And I thought we were making progress, wolfsbane. The journal is irrelevant - where is the creation science? A single example, please. :pac:

Why ask, when you reject all I give you? You will say they were not creation science, but the creation scientists insist they are.

It's between them and you. I can see no problem with their material being at least as good as yours, and I know some of these scientists well enough to trust their judgment.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

No because God (supposedly) created the universe and everything in it. He created the universe where this would happen. He doesn't have to do anything at the moment it is happening because he had already started the chain of events.

He had to create some form of universe and choose to created this one where this would happen. He caused it to occur through the creation of the universe in which it would.

Again it is like dropping a rock knowing that it will hit the ground. You don't have to do anything the moment it hits, but you cause it to happen by dropping it. If you drop it over someone's head you do nothing the moment it hits their head but you caused that to happen. You could have dropped the rock some where else. You drop the rock over someone's head you cause a rock to hit their head. It isn't that you allowed the rock to hit them in the head. You caused it. The rock is simply doing what it was always going to do.



Doesn't apply because you did not created the universe or your neighbour.

Say your neighbour is very jealous. You tell him someone has slept with his wife. He storms in to a room with a gun and he is going to kill who ever it was. You know he will do it, and he asks you who it was. You say "Jim", knowing beyond all doubt that your neighbour will kill Jim if you say it was Jim.

You caused Jim's death. Not only did you set these events in motion knowing what would happen by telling your neighbour someone slept with his wife knowing it would send him into a rage, you picked Jim to die. Yes it is your neighbour who chooses to kill him but you know beyond all doubt that he will choose to kill him if you tell him. There is no unknown, no probabilities.

You could have not told your neighbour someone slept with his wife. You could have picked Paul or Harry or Jack. You didn't, you picked Jim knowing that once you did nothing but Jim's death would happen. What your neighbour does is set, as set as a rock dropped from your hand falling on someone's head. You know he will shoot someone.

But that presupposes it immoral of God to create a universe in which He knows man will sin. You accept that He did not make man sin, but blame Him for allowing it to happen by virtue of creating the circumstances. What if God had a higher cause to serve, one that justified Him creating a universe in which man would freely choose to sin?

That in fact is God's case - He is perfectly and infinitely holy, and all His decisions are likewise righteous. He chose to create a universe in which sin would enter, but in response to which He would redeem many sinners for Himself, by Himself paying for their sins.

If one accepts the concept of the God of the Bible, one must accept His decisions as always perfectly righteous.

Another analogy: the judge sentences the rapist to ten years in prison and the rapist's son feels the shame and deprivation imprisonment brings on a family. He is embittered and when of age he gets involved in robbery and violence.

Is the judge at fault? Should he have let the rapist go free? Or was the judge right, even if as a consequence the son yielded to the tempation to blame society for his problems?

The judge had a higher motive that over-rode the consequent sinful choices of the son.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why ask, when you reject all I give you? You will say they were not creation science, but the creation scientists insist they are.

You have given me stuff that creation scientists claim is creation science; I have explained why they are not - either they are not science (no investigation/experiment) or they have nothing to do with creation (radiohalos and snake sex, anyone?). I want something that is both science and related to creationism. Not a big ask, if any exists. What is your problem with that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's between them and you. I can see no problem with their material being at least as good as yours, and I know some of these scientists well enough to trust their judgment.

Science is an objective thing - you cannot argue that non-science is science and you cannot argue that something is creation science if it has nothing to do with creationism. And I chuckle at your opinion that my 'material' is just as good as theirs when you refuse to read from either source! :pac:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Most of us are aware that evolutionists come in two groups - atheists and theists. The latter believe God initiated and intervenes in the process of evolution, while the former do not.

"Evolutionists" (I assume you mean neo-darwinians as opposed to other theories of evolution) don't come in two groups. There is one theory of neo-Darwinian evolution. Creationists see two groups, those that agree with them and those that don't.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, I see what you mean - God's value is just as subjective as your's. That is correct only if your reality is true. If Christianity's is true, then God creates the intrinsic values.

No he doesn't. That is simply changing what "intrinsic" means, like saying if God exists then he can create good bad things, or hot cold things.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He doesn't have an opinion, He has the truth.

The "truth" of his opinion is whether or not he holds it or not, whether or not it is or isn't his opinion. Does God hold the opinion X, yes or no. That is statement that is truth or false. .

But it no more becomes an independent property of the universe than my opinion or your opinion does. God's opinion that something is good exists only as his opinion. If you imagine a universe where the thing exists but God doesn't then his opinion is not a property of the thing, like its colour or its weight would be.

Again you are arguing the authority of something (God is correct in his opinions) not that something actually retains his opinion as a property of itself.

And the belief that God is correct in his opinions is a judgement call on your part in the same way that believing the UN charter is correct is a judgement call.

Christians of the opinion that God's opinion is correct are no different than anyone else determining moral and ethical issues. The idea that having God some how makes your beliefs objective over the subjective beliefs of others is simply an illusion

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rationally, if God is real and is who He claims to be, the author of all meaning/reality, then His morality is the only objective one.

No it isn't. By definition if God exists and has an opinion on something that opinion isn't objective because he could hold a different opinion. He chooses his opinion which means it isn't objective.

For example my keyboard is black. It is always black due to the chemical make up of the materials and the way light works. It is black to me, it is black to you. It is black to everyone. If someone sees something other than black that is because a different process is taking place to make them see that but that can relate to the process for you and me.

My keyboard is black is not an opinion. It is a property of the keyboard, it is not a judgement of the keyboard.

To God my keyboard is black. For it to be something else could would have to change it to something else. Or he would have to change the definition of "black" to something else. To achieve any of this he has to change something about the universe because "black" is an intrinsic property of the keyboards.

Now "my keyboard looks bad" isn't. It is not an intrinsic property of the keyboard. It is a judgement of the keyboard, it is an opinion of the keyboard. It is not a fact of the keyboard.

If God says it looks bad that no more becomes a universal property of the keyboard (like "black" is) than if I say the keyboard looks bad. It is simply God's opinion of the keyboard.

You can believe if you like that God's opinion is the highest authority and therefore it looks bad is the correct opinion to hold of my keyboard, and all other opinions are incorrect, but again this does not make "it looks bad" a property of the keyboard. If God could have taken the other opinion, that it does in fact look really nice and he would not have had to have changed anything about the keyboard itself.

So again, you are arguing authority not objectiveness.