The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...that is like saying that Newton unsuccessfully attempted to apply gravity to the planetary system in the Universe!!!!

Newton's contributions to classical mechanics have been accepted and used extensively by the scientific community. Dembski's assertions have been rejected. So there is no validity in your comparison.

Specified Complexity is an observable reality in biological systems!!!

It is inapproriate. Molecular information theory is what is applied to molecular biology.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Sorry for the late reply to this, I was out of the country until yesterday.

I've been off-line myself most of the week, so I'm glad not to have kept you waiting. Apologies to others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As a Christian, I have a morality that demands me to do good. My problem is seeing how a materialist can have a morality that demands the same of him. You may choose to live a moral life for the benefits it brings to you and yours, but there is nothing to say you should not instead choose to exploit others as much as you can get away with.
We have already gone through this, a materialists morality has the benefit of having to be reasoned through, we know there is no absolute morality, so anything we define as moral or immoral must be explained as to why it is, this means that the thing that says we should or should not do is ourselves.

You keep missing the point. There may be practical reasons for any morality, but that does not say one ought to do it. One can freely choose to gamble one's freedom, for example, for the possible benefits of robbing the bank. But if it WRONG, then even guaranteed success will not make it a good moral choice. Is it wrong for me to rob the bank, or just dangerous?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, what is the test as to whether homosexual behaviour is morally good is 1950s Britain?
Well, what are the exact circumstances? Timeline is largely irrelevent, its wether or not all parties are capable of making an informed decision on consent is what is important. If all parties can give informed consent and the act doesn't really effect anyone outside of the parties concerned, then I see no reason why it isn't moral.

The circumstances are Alan Turning and his gay partner, both consenting. You say that was morally OK, but society said it was not. How can you then claim morality is what society determines?

You are oscillitating between morality being what the individual determines and what society determines. If you make up your mind we can proceed to compare this to the absolute morality others hold to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robert Maxwell, Robert Mugabe, were either moral or stupid?
My apologies, I mean to say no intelligence can ever be truely amoral, as all intelligences would have an idea of the consequences of their actions.

Being amoral does not require one to be ignorant of the consequences of one's actions. Indeed, some amoralists gain pleasure from those consequences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A few samples, in alphabetical order:
Adultery
Bestiality
Child sacrifice
Homosexuality
Incest

Of course they were also guilty of idolatry, thefts, murder also - but the previous list is of several things that especially degraded their land.

All the children were guilty of this too? They couldn't be saved?

No, the children were innocent of those crimes. But they were God's creations and so could be recalled when and how He chose. Just as many innocents today die in disasters, wars, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So societies that say homosexuality is wrong are immoral for so saying? But WHY should they embrace notions like informed consent and peoples right to live their life as free as is possible? Do these things belong to a higher morality than theirs? What is this higher morality than can condemn a whole society as immoral?
Societies that homosexuality is wrong are wrong because of why they say so. There is factually based reasoned logic behind it. Notions like informed consent and peoples rights are things that obviously should be considered when defining morality.

You have not established any of these notions as being a moral standard. Indeed, you say that there are no such absolute standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What are these foundations? Sounds suspiciously like an absolute morality to me.
Foundations like PEARL (Phyisical Evidence And Reasoned Logic), its quite like how science should be approached.

Where does evidence and logic tell us informed consent is an inviolable standard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you accept that materialism cannot be lived out consistently? That as a world-view, it sucks. That atheist materialists have to live as if there was meaning and good and evil in the world.

If you see that, my effort has not been in vain.
No, the atheist materialist lives knowing that the meaning they live is the meaning the choose and that the good and evil they recognise may not be what other poeple see.

Well, that is progress. The atheist materialist says their understanding of life, its morality, etc, is purely individual. That there is no right and wrong outside of their own opinions.

So you are rejecting the idea that morality is what society determines it to be. Rape is only evil in the eyes of those who find it so. It is good in others eyes, and no individual's morality has any meaning to anyone but themselves.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, you can only show how one example is better than another in your opinion. Others may or may not share that opinion.

Murder is not immoral in many people's opinions. How can you show it is immoral for all people?/COLOR]
I can show how one is better acording to the humanly defined idea of morality.

That's no more than an appeal to majority morality. You cannot show that that morality is any better/more valid than any other.

I can leave behind irrationality and emotion and apply reason and logic and demonstarte the greater effectiveness of one is of idea morality then another.

Effective for what? Society's peace? The elimination of dissidents would achieve that. Society's prosperity? Imperialism is very effective.

But why ought one to seek peace or prosperity? Why not go for a maximum of fun at other's expense, even if it ends in a hail of bullets at a police road-block? We all die at some time, why not after a lot of selfish fun? Morality is about the why, the ought - not about effectiveness.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote:

The atheist materialist says their understanding of life, its morality, etc, is purely individual. That there is no right and wrong outside of their own opinions.

No, you say that. "The" atheist materialist (though there is no generic) typically says that morality is societal.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've been off-line myself most of the week, so I'm glad not to have kept you waiting. Apologies to others.

No problem

wolfsbane wrote: »

You keep missing the point. There may be practical reasons for any morality, but that does not say one ought to do it. One can freely choose to gamble one's freedom, for example, for the possible benefits of robbing the bank. But if it WRONG, then even guaranteed success will not make it a good moral choice. Is it wrong for me to rob the bank, or just dangerous?

Em I would imagine that the majority of people would think that if something is practical, it ought to be done. What is the alternative but to be impractical? Why ought you do that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The circumstances are Alan Turning and his gay partner, both consenting. You say that was morally OK, but society said it was not. How can you then claim morality is what society determines?

Morality is what society determines, but how societies determine that morality determines the actual quality fo that morality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are oscillitating between morality being what the individual determines and what society determines. If you make up your mind we can proceed to compare this to the absolute morality others hold to.

Morality is both. It is fluid. Individuals decide their morality and when they join together in a society they decide a joint morality, laws, to live by. Not everyone may agree word for word with the societal morality, but to live in the society they must. However they still have the power to try to influence the societies morals and possibly change the laws. This happens all the time.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Being amoral does not require one to be ignorant of the consequences of one's actions. Indeed, some amoralists gain pleasure from those consequences.

All intelligences have an idea of things they would not want done to them. All intelligences have an idea of the consequences of their actions and would have an idea of wether they would want to be subject to those consequences. This, wether they want to admit it or not, is their morality. I dont see how any action caused by a human with foreknowledge of the outcome can be called amoral.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, the children were innocent of those crimes. But they were God's creations and so could be recalled when and how He chose. Just as many innocents today die in disasters, wars, etc.

Convenient that he chose to recall them at the same time he ordered their parents slaughtered.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have not established any of these notions as being a moral standard. Indeed, you say that there are no such absolute standards.

There are no absolute standards, but there are tools which are applicable to creating a human standard. There is no absolute standard for building a house, but there are man made standards for how a house should be built.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where does evidence and logic tell us informed consent is an inviolable standard?

I would think it follows that if morality is what people should and should not do to others, then an aspect of that is wether or not the others have an informed consent of what is being done to them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, that is progress. The atheist materialist says their understanding of life, its morality, etc, is purely individual. That there is no right and wrong outside of their own opinions.

The atheist materialist recognises that while it may have its own ideas on morality and life, societies may be different. However, while it may be more practical to just go along with societies ideas on morality without question, the atheist materilist recognises that morality is a fluid constantly redefining idea, and that s/he may have an opportunity to influence societies idea of morality. Hence at one time women couldn't vote, now they can, contraceptions was illegal, now its not and at one you could own slaves in the knowledge it was support by the christian bible while now it is seen as a pretty horrible thing to do.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's no more than an appeal to majority morality. You cannot show that that morality is any better/more valid than any other.

I'm sorry, but if even what is meant by morality cant be agreed by people then an individuals morality is a meaningless term. If society has a universally agreed notion of what morality is supposed to be, then one idea of morality can be shown to be better thought out, with more reason and logic than another by being shown to be closer to that universal notion of morality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Effective for what? Society's peace? The elimination of dissidents would achieve that. Society's prosperity? Imperialism is very effective.

Elimination of dissedents would only serve to remove those complaining about a problem, it wouldn't get rid of problem meaning more would eventually come-therefore far better just to deal with the problem. The effectiveness of morality is a measure of the maximisation of the average happiness of everyone in a society as a result of that morality. It might make one indivual very happy to rob a bank, but it would infringe on the happiness of many others. There are obviously more aspects than that, but I'm not going through everything.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But why ought one to seek peace or prosperity? Why not go for a maximum of fun at other's expense, even if it ends in a hail of bullets at a police road-block? We all die at some time, why not after a lot of selfish fun? Morality is about the why, the ought - not about effectiveness.

Morality is only about the ought if you believe its absolute, if you believe it comes from god. But it doesn't, its an evolutionary device to make the societal life of humans easy, so its all about the effectiveness.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't believe in reality btw:p

....spoken like a true Materialist!!!:D:eek:

...that must be why you continue to reject Creation Science!!!:D:eek:

Malty_T wrote: »

Also your analogy is a stinker because:

Newton = Physicist -> Theorised Physics.
Demski = Mathematician -> Theorised Biology!?

Newton used Maths to test and develop Physics Laws and Theories

Dembski uses Maths to test and develop Biology Laws and Theories.

....What's the problem with that?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....Saved Christians are a tiny minority in EVERY country.

monosharp
Thank God.:p:D:pac:

... how mixed up can you get? ...
....thanking a God that you don't believe in .... for the lack of His people on Earth!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

Because hes supposed to be a god. Pride would suit Apollo, Zeus etc but not some supreme all-powerful creator of all being.

And creation is NOT perfect. Very very far from it.

If creation was perfect there would be no handicapped children born, no disease, no hunger.

Pride is only sinful and inappropriate for fallen creatures like Men and Demons ... who might just begin to believe the lie that they have something to be proud of!!!!

Pride is quite appropriate for an Omnipotent God who really has something to be proud of in His Magnificent Self!!!!

....and death and disease have been intoduced by Man's wilful rebellion against God's perfect Creation!!!!
...your argument is like blaming the house-owner for the vandal breaking his windows!!!!:D

monosharp wrote: »

Yeah, some book that Bible.

...on this we CAN agree!!!:D

monosharp wrote: »

Like they were going to die anyways ?

... NO they weren't ... I have just told you that they were created as potemtial immortals!!!
....and anyway even if if you were right, Satan would then be lying for not telling them that they would die anyway!!!

monosharp wrote: »

Absolute tripe. You cannot know what good is unless you know evil the same way you cannot know what black is if you don't know white, what sound is unless you know silence.

...so according to this argument you cannot know what peace is until you know war, what life is until you know death, what health is until you know disease, what sexual satisfaction is until you know rape .... you must have a very painful existence!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...the point is that you didn't CREATE the baby...and it is a Human Being, just like you ... so you therefore have no authority to take it's life no more than you have the authority to take the life of any of your children after they are born!!!!!

monosharp
Me and my wife did create the baby. Without us there would be no baby.

... you didn't create your baby ...you pro-created your baby!!!!
...and are you now also adding Infanticide to your 'reproductive rights' agenda???

wrote:

monosharp
The god of the old testament* throws fits all the time, hes like a spoiled child throwing his toys out of the pram.

He is a God of supreme patience ... but He is also Just ... and will visit His Justice on those who hate Him ... and His Mercy on those who love Him.

...very logical actually!!!

wrote:

monosharp
*God of the old testament does not necessarily mean 'God'.

there is only one True God and none other by which you may be Saved!!!!:)

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
God is a God of perfect love and perfect justice

monosharp
If I wear more then one type of cloth I should be killed ?

...only if you wear clashing colours ... or totally impractical high heel shoes!!!!:p

wrote:

monosharp
If its the God in the OT your talking about I hope you haven't been eating shellfish, wearing more then 2 types of cloth or working on a sunday.

...oops, I did all THREE yesterday!!!!:eek:

.....told you I am a terrible (but Saved) sinner!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...that is like saying that Newton unsuccessfully attempted to apply gravity to the planetary system in the Universe!!!!

monosharp
How quaint.

You might want to read the theory of relativity and how Newtonian physics are wrong when it comes to planetary objects before you continue talking about anything scientific.

.... Creation Scientists are proud to call Newton the 'Father of Creation Science' ...

....and his Physics Laws remain the basis for many practical applications.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

And yet is it not implied that man is not immortal in Genisis:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Does this not imply that either;
a) Man needs to eat this fruit to sustain his immortality?
b) Man is mortal, but can become immortal by eating this fruit?

...as usual you are WRONG....

God knew that Man had 'Fallen' into Satanic Gnosticism...and therefore was physically dying.

God feared that a wo/man possessed of evil knowledge would abuse it, especially if they were to discover how to restore their physical immortality!!!!

Such was the 'downside' from such a discovery, that God placed an angel to prevent Mankind from discovering such knowledge!!!!

...and when you think about it, what kind of 'Hell on Earth' would we have if the Hitlers and the Stalins of this World actually were physically immortal???!!!

...death is a merciful relief for such people ... and their targets.

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

.... the atheist materialist lives knowing that the meaning they live is the meaning they choose and that the good and evil they recognise may not be what other poeple see.

...so they are their own God!!!:)

...not really knowing good and evil anymore ... but merely defining good and evil to suit themselves!!!!

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I can show how one is better acording to the humanly defined idea of morality. I can leave behind irrationality and emotion and apply reason and logic and demonstarte the greater effectiveness of one is of idea morality then another.

...lofty words ... pity about the reality of it all!!!:eek:

J C

robindch wrote: »

Well, while most physicists would probably agree that Newton was a truly great physicist,

...some Materialists seem to constantly quibble about Newton not discovering relativity!!!:pac::):D

...all this quibbling must be because he was a Creation Scientist!!!!:D

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Molecular information theory is what is applied to molecular biology.

....that's like saying that what is applied to a DVD is laser information theory!!!!

...the REAL issue is WHERE the information originated and HOW it was specified onto either media, in the first place!!!!

...and the appliance of intelligence is the only viable candidate!!!:pac::D

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... how mixed up can you get? ...
....thanking a God that you don't believe in .... for the lack of His people on Earth!!!!

What makes you think I was thanking your god ? And what makes you think I don't believe in god.

Maybe I do, just not yours.

Pride is only sinful and inappropriate for fallen creatures like Men and Demons ... who might just begin to believe the lie that they have something to be proud of!!!!

Pride is quite appropriate for an Omnipotent God who really has something to be proud of in His Magnificent Self!!!!

If he was omnipotent he wouldn't be proud.

....and death and disease have been intoduced by Man's wilful rebellion against God's perfect Creation!!!!
...your argument is like blaming the house-owner for the vandal breaking his windows!!!!:D

If the house was a run down dirty old shack with bad plumbing, no roof and infested with termites then you might have a point.

... NO they weren't ... I have just told you that they were created as potemtial immortals!!!

Nothing you quoted from the Bible says anything of the sort.

....and anyway even if if you were right, Satan would then be lying for not telling them that they would die anyway!!!

No, Satan told them the truth that they would not die that day. God told them they woulddie that day.

God also did not tell them what would really happen once they ate the fruit.

And out of curiousity, where was God when this was happening ? What was he doing ? Smiting someone for eating shellfish ?

Why didn't he know what was going to happen ? Why did he put the tree in the garden in the first place ?

An omnipotent being would know all of the above. The god of the bible clearly didn't.

...so according to this argument you cannot know what peace is until you know war, what life is until you know death, what health is until you know disease, what sexual satisfaction is until you know rape .... you must have a very painful existence!!!

Knowing sexual satisfaction would require you to know abstinence not rape, but yes that is all true.

You cannot know pain if you don't know the absense of it. You cannot know peace if you don't know war.

He is a God of supreme patience ... but He is also Just ... and will visit His Justice on those who hate Him ... and His Mercy on those who love Him.

supreme patience ? After putting Adam and Eve in a garden with a forbidden tree and a talking snake and knowing what would happen and then acting surprised when it did happen, he showed no patience whatsoever.

there is only one True God and none other by which you may be Saved!!!!:)

I find it hilarious how the requirements and conditions change so much in so little time. 2000 years ago we had to cut our penises, wear only one type of cloth and sacrifice animals to be saved.

For a being with surpreme patience he sure changes his mind a lot.

I wonder what the conditions of our 'salvation' will be in 100 years time.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

.... Creation Scientists are proud to call Newton the 'Father of Creation Science' ...

....and his Physics Laws remain the basis for many practical applications.

Newton was the facther of creation science how exactly ?

And yes I'm probably much more aware then you are of how Newton was been valuable to physics.

gaynorvader

First off; J C could you please try to combine your posts into one or two posts? It's just that your signature is quite gaudy with the red writing and it kind of hurts my head when it's repeated multiple times so close together.

J C wrote:

....spoken like a true Materialist!!!:D:eek:

Could you please stop being so prejudicial? It's kind of grating on my nerves that you appear to think every atheist, agnostic and materialist thinks the same way.

J C wrote:

...that must be why you continue to reject Creation Science!!!

Also could you stop presuming to know everyone's reasons for doing everything to the point that you ignore them when they try to explain their beliefs to you?

J C wrote:

Newton used Maths to test and develop Physics Laws and Theories

Dembski uses Maths to test and develop Biology Laws and Theories.

....What's the problem with that?

I don't know enough about this to debate it with you, but do you think it might be possible that Dembski did what many scientists are guilty of doing and forced the maths to fit his theories?

J C wrote:

Pride is only sinful and inappropriate for fallen creatures like Men and Demons ... who might just begin to believe the lie that they have something to be proud of!!!!

Pride is quite appropriate for an Omnipotent God who really has something to be proud of in His Magnificent Self!!!!

One rule for God, another for beings created in His image? Seems fair enough I suppose. Does that mean though that pride can be justified? If a human overcomes his/her mortal flaws and is without sin for his/her entire life they are justified to feel proud, or is that still a sin?

J C wrote:

....and death and disease have been intoduced by Man's wilful rebellion against God's perfect Creation!!!!
...your argument is like blaming the house-owner for the vandal breaking his windows!!!!

Where are you getting this? In the Bible, it is implied that man was created mortal. I quoted the passage before, but I think it still applies:

Holy Bible wrote:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Does this not imply that Adam needed to partake of this "tree of life" to be immortal? You just dismissed my point last time:

J C wrote:

...as usual you are WRONG....

God knew that Man had 'Fallen' into Satanic Gnosticism...and therefore was physically dying.

God feared that a wo/man possessed of evil knowledge would abuse it, especially if they were to discover how to restore their physical immortality!!!!

Such was the 'downside' from such a discovery, that God placed an angel to prevent Mankind from discovering such knowledge!!!!

...and when you think about it, what kind of 'Hell on Earth' would we have if the Hitlers and the Stalins of this World actually were physically immortal???!!!

...death is a merciful relief for such people ... and their targets.

What do you mean by "Satanic Gnosticism" and why did it mean Adam and Eve were physically dying?

I understood the reasons why Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. But that wasn't my point at all My point was that they weren't immortal to begin with.

If the Hitlers and Stalins of the world were immortal, wouldn't everyone else be too? In which case, what could they have done? The fear of death is what motivates man most in his endeavors. The reason for many religious wars is down to man's fear of death. He/she hopes to acheive eternal life in exchange for doing what they perceive to be their god(s)'s will.

J C wrote:

...so they are their own God!!!

...not really knowing good and evil anymore ... but merely defining good and evil to suit themselves!!!!

Putting words into peoples' mouths again. A materialist can know good and evil in one sense. They know it is wrong or "evil" to kill someone else. as for defining good and evil to suit themselves every human being does this. It's why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible.

J C wrote:

...lofty words ... pity about the reality of it all!!!

What do you mean by this?

J C wrote:

....that's like saying that what is applied to a DVD is laser information theory!!!!

...the REAL issue is WHERE the information originated and HOW it was specified onto either media, in the first place!!!!

...and the appliance of intelligence is the only viable candidate!!!

Even if God does exist and created our universe, where did HE come from? If mankind were to create a tiny universe tomorrow with life on it, would they think we were gods which had existed forever? Creationism raises more questions than it answers satisfactorily.

J C wrote:

...informed consent can be an inviolable standard, (in my own mind) when I am down in the nightclub ... and somebody, who isn't my wife, asks me to 'come and light her fire'!!!!

....and the only fire that gets lit ... is the hot venerial rash that develops the following week .... despite her being on the pill and my use of a condom!!!!

I don't follow you here, could you elaborate?

I'd like to make it clear I am not a mod, and when I requested you to post in one or two posts, etc. it was merely a request and I wasn't trying to claim any moral high ground. I'm not about to report you or anything, I was just asking you politely (I hope) and don't wish to cause any offence.

The Mad Hatter

monosharp wrote: »

Newton was the facther of creation science how exactly ?

Well, basically he was a creationist and a scientist, who did no scientific investigation into creation whatsoever.

By that standard, he's pretty much on a par with all living "creation scientists".

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You cannot show that that morality is any better/more valid than any other.

Neither can you

"Show" that God's opinion on morality it better/more valid than my opinion on morality.

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

...so they are their own God!!!:)

No, for they do not believe in god.

J C wrote: »

...not really knowing good and evil anymore ... but merely defining good and evil to suit themselves!!!!

That is the way it has always been though. Tell me, if good and evil are absolutes, then why wasn't it evil to own slaves in the bible, yet it would be considered evil now?

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

I can show how one is better acording to the humanly defined idea of morality. I can leave behind irrationality and emotion and apply reason and logic and demonstarte the greater effectiveness of one is of idea morality then another.

...lofty words ... pity about the reality of it all!!!:eek:

So, in your opinion, in reality one morality cannot be shown to be better than another? For that is what I said above I can do.

J C

monosharp
What makes you think I was thanking your god ? And what makes you think I don't believe in god.
...there is only One True God


Maybe I do, (believe in God) just not yours.
...so are you a Theistic Atheist then??


If he was omnipotent he wouldn't be proud.
Omnipotence and pride in your work are not mutually exclusive!!!


No, Satan told them the truth that they would not die that day. God told them they woulddie that day.
Satan reassured them that they would NOT die
Ge 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.


God also did not tell them what would really happen once they ate the fruit.
God told them that they would surely die - the direct opposite to what Satan said.
Ge 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."


And out of curiousity, where was God when this was happening ? What was he doing ? Smiting someone for eating shellfish ?
God had given Adam and Eve free-will ... and unlike Satan, God is not a Control Freak!!!!!


Why didn't he know what was going to happen ? Why did he put the tree in the garden in the first place ?
God didn't do any such thing!!!
The occult Gnostic System that caused the 'Fall' was a creation of Satan ... and not of God!!!!!


An omnipotent being would know all of the above. The god of the bible clearly didn't.
He knew alright ... but knowing doesn't make Him responsible for Man's actions!!!!


Knowing sexual satisfaction would require you to know abstinence not rape, but yes that is all true.

You cannot know pain if you don't know the absense of it. You cannot know peace if you don't know war.
...so you want to experience war, disease and death ... but not rape ... even though rape is often a by-product of war.
...so do you always have to burn your hand in the fire to appreciate fire safety?
....I'm able to appreciate God's blessings without having to experience Satan's curses!!!


supreme patience ? After putting Adam and Eve in a garden with a forbidden tree and a talking snake and knowing what would happen and then acting surprised when it did happen, he showed no patience whatsoever.
....Adam and Eve were both free agents ... and God didn't abridge their freedom ... but He did point out the conseqences of abusing their freedom!!!

I find it hilarious how the requirements and conditions change so much in so little time. 2000 years ago we had to cut our penises, wear only one type of cloth and sacrifice animals to be saved.
...the requirement and coditions for Salvation hasn't changed one iota .... Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow ... and believing on Jesus Christ to save you has always been (and always will be) the means of Salvation!!!



For a being with surpreme patience he sure changes his mind a lot.

I wonder what the conditions of our 'salvation' will be in 100 years time

...they VERY SAME as they are today ... believing on Jesus Christ!!!!

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Newton was the father of creation science how exactly ?

And yes I'm probably much more aware then you are of how Newton was been valuable to physics.

...Newton was a Creationist and the founding Scientist of modern Physics

....Creation Scientists are conventional scientists and Creationists ... who can trace the origins of their knowledge right back to Newton!!!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...Newton was a Creationist and the founding Scientist of modern Physics

....Creation Scientists are conventional scientists and Creationists ... who can trace the origins of their knowledge right back to Newton!!!!:D

Actually we regard Newton as the belonging to Classical Physics:P

So Creation Scientists, don't believe in the undeterministic universe of Quantum Mechanics (arguably, the most rigidly tested physical theory ever!) that is Modern Physics?? :eek::D

J C

gaynorvader
Could you please stop being so prejudicial? It's kind of grating on my nerves that you appear to think every atheist, agnostic and materialist thinks the same way.
...so do you believe in reality...
...and if you do, why do you continue to believe you are a direct discendant of Pondslime????


Also could you stop presuming to know everyone's reasons for doing everything to the point that you ignore them when they try to explain their beliefs to you?
.....I wasn't presuming anything ... merely making a logical deduction based on the facts!!!


I don't know enough about this to debate it with you, but do you think it might be possible that Dembski did what many scientists are guilty of doing and forced the maths to fit his theories?
....I have examined his maths and I have found them to be 'watertight'!!!
....so I don't think that he has forced the maths to fit the theory!!!


One rule for God, another for beings created in His image? Seems fair enough I suppose. Does that mean though that pride can be justified? If a human overcomes his/her mortal flaws and is without sin for his/her entire life they are justified to feel proud, or is that still a sin?
....they can feel proud of their salvation, their humility and many other things.
....it becomes sinful when their pride blinds them to the reality of their Fallen Condition.


Does this not imply that Adam needed to partake of this "tree of life" to be immortal? You just dismissed my point last time:
....Adam was immortal before the Fall ... and mortal afterwards ... while seeking to restore his immortality by using knowledge about life!!!
...God's fear was that Fallen Mankind would re-gain physical immortality.


What do you mean by "Satanic Gnosticism" and why did it mean Adam and Eve were physically dying?
It is the occult knowledge of evil possessed by Satan and his demons.
It is quite powerful ... and God, in His infinite wisdom has determined that because Mankind has accessed this evil and contiues to have access to it ... that we shouldn't have physical immortality.


If the Hitlers and Stalins of the world were immortal, wouldn't everyone else be too? In which case, what could they have done? The fear of death is what motivates man most in his endeavors. The reason for many religious wars is down to man's fear of death. He/she hopes to acheive eternal life in exchange for doing what they perceive to be their god(s)'s will.
In an immortal world, the poweful would permanently oppress the weak .... in our current world, death levels things out, and even the most powerful people must succum to death!!!


A materialist can know good and evil in one sense. They know it is wrong or "evil" to kill someone else. as for defining good and evil to suit themselves every human being does this. It's why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible.
...there is only one Bible ... and it is available to everyone.
...and do Materialists always think it is 'evil' to kill someone?
...and how do they define 'evil' in the first place?




Even if God does exist and created our universe, where did HE come from? If mankind were to create a tiny universe tomorrow with life on it, would they think we were gods which had existed forever? Creationism raises more questions than it answers satisfactorily.
...If God exists, He must logically be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and transcendent because of the scale and reality of the physical universe.


I'd like to make it clear I am not a mod, and when I requested you to post in one or two posts, etc. it was merely a request and I wasn't trying to claim any moral high ground. I'm not about to report you or anything, I was just asking you politely (I hope) and don't wish to cause any offence.
....no offence whatever taken ... and I will try to post in bigger sections in future.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...Newton was a Creationist and the founding Scientist of modern Physics

....Creation Scientists are conventional scientists and Creationists ... who can trace the origins of their knowledge right back to Newton!!!!:D

Creationists deny modern physics, like they deny all other modern science.

And Newton did absolutely no research into creation. The theory of evolution hadn't been discovered when he was alive. You might as well say Merlin was the founding father of creation science.

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Tell me, if good and evil are absolutes, then why wasn't it evil to own slaves in the bible, yet it would be considered evil now?

....slavery hasn't gone away ... it just has reinvented itself .... as any heavily-mortgaged hard-working person on a modest income will confirm.

....it is part of our (unequal) Human Condition.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....slavery hasn't gone away ... it just has reinvented itself .... as any heavily-mortgaged hard-working person on a modest income will confirm.

....it is part of our (unequal) Human Condition.

Emm,

Being a slave, or job with a mortage with potential for bigger things... hmm.. tough choice there:rolleyes:

I regard myself as hard working (though only somebody else can truly say whether I am or not) and I would take it over slavery ANY day.

philologos

Less than a year ago we had a discussion on how Torah slavery is not the same thing as Western slavery:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055509714&page=2

It starts at post number #46

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...there is only One True God

Thats not fact, its not science and its completely according to your own personal beliefs.

You don't know theres only one God, there could be 100 or 0.

You BELIEVE there is only one god. You cannot know that, noone can know that.

Maybe I do, (believe in God) just not yours.
...so are you a Theistic Atheist then??

Who said I'm an atheist ? Maybe I worship Thor or Zeus.

Omnipotence and pride in your work are not mutually exclusive!!!

Then clearly you don't understand the meaning of omnipotence. Google for a good dictionary.

Satan reassured them that they would NOT die
Ge 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.

They didn't die. (That day)

God told them that they would surely die - the direct opposite to what Satan said.
Ge 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

They didn't die. (That day)

If we take it literally then the god of the bible was lying because if i told you "Eat that and you will die" the meaning is now/today.

God had given Adam and Eve free-will ... and unlike Satan, God is not a Control Freak!!!!!

Thats not my question. I asked where was he. He is supposed to be omnipotent, all knowing, all seeing, all-powerful.

He wasn't there, where was he ?

God didn't do any such thing!!!
The occult Gnostic System that caused the 'Fall' was a creation of Satan ... and not of God!!!!!

Again, not my question. You said god created everything and is omnipotent. If he created everything then he created the tree, the fruit and the snake.

i.e > He set Adam and Eve up.

He knew alright ... but knowing doesn't make Him responsible for Man's actions!!!!

If he knew why did he ask Adam and Eve why they were covering themselves.

...so you want to experience war, disease and death ... but not rape ... even though rape is often a by-product of war.

That makes no sense at all. We are talking about opposites.

You can't know pleasure if you don't know the absense of pleasure. You can't know pain if you don't know the absense of it. etc

...so do you always have to burn your hand in the fire to appreciate fire safety?

No because someone else has been burned and relayed that information but thats not the same thing anyways.

....I'm able to appreciate God's blessings without having to experience Satan's curses!!!

You said last post that your a terrible sinner.

....Adam and Eve were both free agents ... and God didn't abridge their freedom ... but He did point out the conseqences of abusing their freedom!!!

By lying to them and withholding vital information.

...the requirement and coditions for Salvation hasn't changed one iota .... Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow ... and believing on Jesus Christ to save you has always been (and always will be) the means of Salvation!!!

What about in 100 B.C. What were the requirements then ?