I hate when atheists have a problem accepting blind faith. That is so hypocritical. Virtually EVERY atheist, passive or active, has so much blind faith and yet aren't honest or intelligent enough to admit it or recognize it. Sad world.
@psford1 Accepting blind faith like, "My wife isn't cheating on me," is different from accepting blind faith like, "There is a God and he is going to smite me if I eat meat on Fridays." I can, based on other inherent, real statistics based on my wife's relationship with me assume that she isn't cheating on me. There is no way whatsoever and never has been a way to measure the presence of a deity and whether or not its affecting us. Take some courses in logic. Please.
@InternetDisciple That is not evidence. Evidence is having demonstrable application when using the scientific method. In other words, evidence means you can provide that it actually happened, can break it apart and reconstruct it, or can observe it within the natural universe (and this observation must be re-tested and re-tested in any way, shape or form to prove that it actually exists). That's not what ANY religion does. You do NOT have evidence.
I guess that you also believe that a building is not absolute proof of a builder.
I, however, know that a building is absolute proof of a builder. I also know from science that matter can't create itself, so something other than the matter must have brought the matter into existence.
But I do understand that many people choose to not follow the evidence.
@InternetDisciple This is a common fallacy - it is known as the Watchmaker analogy. It's been refuted, by many people. Here's one: "if complex things must have been intelligently designed by something more complex than themselves, then anything posited as this complex designer (i.e. God) must also have been designed by something yet more complex." How did your GOD come into being, then? You.Do.NOT.Have.Evidence.You.Have.The.Lack.Of.It.And.Terribly.Dull.Logistical.Talents.
The watchmaker analogy is one of design. I am talking about the nature of existence. The building, by the nature of it's existence, requires a builder. Since matter can't create itself, then obviously something other than the matter brought the matter into existence.
It is obvious. But I do understand that many people choose to not follow the evidence.
@InternetDisciple ... So obviously God couldn't have been brought into existence without a designer. Thanks, you just proved yourself wrong. Like I was saying.
"So obviously God couldn't have been brought into existence without a designer."
You made a number of mistakes in this sentence.
Firstly, my argument about the nature of existence does not try to name the Creator as you have done.
Secondly, you are making the mistake of assuming that something metaphysical would be bound by the laws of physics (something metaphysical would not necessarily require a Creator).
And you still seem to be talking about design instead of the nature of existence.
@InternetDisciple There is no evidence of metaphysics within history or the realms of contemporary physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics. Metaphysical claims are just claims. They mean nothing. This is what you said: " know that a building is absolute proof of a builder. I also know from science that matter can't create itself, so something other than the matter must have brought the matter into existence." So something must have brought God into existence according to YOUR proof.
"There is no evidence of metaphysics within history or the realms of contemporary physics..."
It is known from science that since matter can't create itself, then something other than the matter must have brought the matter into existence. And since matter can't be created from within the laws of physics, then something from outside the laws of physics, must have brought the matter into existence.
It is obvious that there is a metaphysical Creator.
@InternetDisciple Except there are plenty of theories, outside of the Big Bang, that explain the requirements for the beginning of the universe. Not definitively knowing how the universe was created does not give anyone the right to make up their own reason without sufficient evidence (not philosophical evidence, since that's not evidence).
You STILL don't seem to understand my argument. I am not talking about HOW the universe was started. My argument is not one of design. I am talking about the nature of existence.
@InternetDisciple Please respond to the questions I've asked you in full (which you've ignored) and please stop making circular arguments. Do you really, really think you're making any kind of point here? You're not using physics at your disposal, because if you were you'd understand why the Big Bang, fundamentally, makes a whole lot of sense - and why God certainly doesn't. "Forget Jesus. The stars died so we could be here today."
@InternetDisciple Your entire argument is circular, actually. Also, we are limited a set amount of characters. You've ignored my, "Even if God is immaterial and not physical, what evidence do you have of that? Simply stating, 'Matter cannot come into being from nothing....' isn't evidence, it's just a claim" and "If God is material somehow, how did he come into existence?" Also, did you know that the Big Bang isn't NOTHING creating SOMETHING? Did you know that you half-wit?
Perhaps you missed where I pointed out that only things that are bound by the laws of physics necessarily require a Creator. If you did not understand why that answers your question, please let me know.
"If God is material somehow, how did he come into existence?"
@InternetDisciple Know what, I'll bite again. I lied. Luckily it's not a sin to do so and God doesn't exist. Prove that something - one thing - is NOT bound by the laws of physics. Again, who ever stated that nothing came from something? I didn't. The Big Bang theory does not state that. No theory on the beginning of the universe states, "nothing was there and then there was something." Why can you just suddenly assume that there is something not bound by the laws of physics?
"Prove that something - one thing - is not bound by the laws of physics."
Easy enough.
Information is metaphysical. Destroy a CD and the info written on it could be lost. But matter/energy can't be create or destroyed. Ideas, too, are metaphysical.
Also, matter exists. And matter can't be created from within the laws of physics. So obviously something metaphysical brought the matter into existence.
@InternetDisciple Matter can be created to form new versions of matter - I.E., stars going super-nova and spreading their cosmic elements to far away planets. Also, spectral class stars emitting enough radiation to produce an ozone layer on planets in habitable zones. We have seen evidence of this today. Matter spreads and begins to form new complex, seemingly designed pieces of matter.
"Matter can be created to form new versions of matter"
But from where do you say that matter ultimately came?
Obviously matter can't bring itself into existence.
I understand that you are merely trying to obfuscate. If a person comes across a building, that person knows that there was a builder. The fact that matter exists proves that there is a Matter Maker.
@InternetDisciple Also, just so you know, incessantly reffering back to, "Please tell me if you don't understand," and "No, you do not understand" is a subtle, yet effective form of ad hominem attack. You've been doing it in almost every post. It has no bearing on the argument - it's a bland assumption that I don't understand your silly argument that has been around forever.
@InternetDisciple You're saying that all evidence points to a deity, even when all real, hard, demonstrable, humans can understand it evidence says otherwise. If your argument is good, you should try to go onto one of those, "Win a million dollars for proof of God" websites. There's a lot of them from plenty of scientific foundations and they WILL pay you if your argument is right. As I've said, you're just regurgitating an age old argument that has never made sense.
"You're saying that all evidence points to a deity,"
Well, I am using the more generic term "Creator". If you want to claim that this Creator is a deity, feel free to do so. My argument merely points out the need of a metaphysical Creator.
"...even when all real, hard, demonstrable, humans can understand it evidence says otherwise."
So you say. However, even little children correctly understand that the Christmas presents did not put themselves under the tree.
@InternetDisciple That's what I'm saying: your argument has been scientifically refuted by the most brilliant scientific minds in our country. Sam Harris the neruoscientist, Richard Dawkins the evolutionary Biologist - Daniel Dennett, the philosopher - they all have tackled the argument. Everyone has. "Nothing cannot come from something DOES NOT EQUAL EVIDENCE FOR GOD YOU FUCKING IMBECILE"
"That's what I'm saying: your argument has been scientifically refuted..."
So you say. However, creationists can still point to the fact that matter can't create itself.
If my argument has already, as you say, been refuted, then it should be no problem for you to refute it here. Somehow, I doubt that you will be able to prove that matter could somehow create itself.
@InternetDisciple I have already answered all your questions. I'm sorry. I have. I have already refuted why simply stating that particular law of science doesn't make you right. Especially not so because humanity can never definitively know whether or not the universe has always existed or came to exist. You are overturning a lot of possibilities because you seem to not be able to get that tune out of your head. Start trying to ... think a little more.
@InternetDisciple I don't think of unscientific positions ever. Until science, all we could do is bargain and hope. We could never get a 100% answer. Until the scientific method, we had no techniques of demonstrating whether or not something was right or wrong, or real, or even what some things were. Scientific thought allowed us to do this. Not metaphysics. Not some unnamed, undefined creator.
"Scientific thought allowed us to do this. Not metaphysics. Not some unnamed, undefined creator."
Uh, I think that whatever brought the matter into existence that makes up our bodies deserves some credit.
Even little children correctly understand that the Christmas presents did not put themselves under the tree. You do know that even little children have such a correct understanding about the Christmas presents, don't you?
@InternetDisciple Really? How do you know? I don't think you can prove any of this - this is essentially a small part of quantum theory - and there's a reason why quantum theory is misusing the scientific understanding of the word "theory." Quantum theory is speculation and guesswork. "Theories" refer to well-stated and well-tested scientific facts. Your speculation about infinite regresses and the beginning of our universe is nothing more than speculation. Can't prove a thing.
"I'll let them legislate at this point of the debate..."
Legislation does not decide science. Facts are stubborn things. If matter can't create itself, then matter can't create itself.
But, as I said, some people follow the evidence and some people don't. The ones that don't may sometimes want to legislate what people believe. For myself, I prefer to follow the evidence.
@InternetDisciple Also I hope you know if this were a formal debate you would have been laughed out of the room a long time ago. You're making non-argument after non-argument. You consistently ignore my points and tell me what I'm actually saying, replacing them with your own thoughts. Nothing you've said has been logically fluent. It's gibberish. I think you suffer from Cognitive Dissonance. Read about it. You're way too authoritative with your non-facts and non-arguments. Make no sense.
I think that if this were a formal debate, you would have been laughed out of the room a long time ago. You're making non-argument after non-argument. You consistently ignore my points and try to tell me what I'm saying, replacing them with your own thoughts. You seem to need to rely on personal attacks such as saying that I suffer from "Congnitive Dissonance".
If your arguments held water, then you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks.
@InternetDisciple No. Not understanding fundamental principles within Cosmology's most rudimentary concepts is why you're not being logically fluent. You're simply just re-iterating old apologist rhetoric. It's boring and makes no logical sense. It's been refuted dozens of times. Just shut up and get to reading. You just haven't read enough, that's really the problem here. It's ALWAYS the problem.
Spare me, because I'm done arguing with you. I'll let the legion of atheist and Christian fanatics alike come onto this comment section whenever they like and see who is making more sense. I'll let them legislate at this point in the debate who is speaking out of their ass and who isn't. I'm sorry, man, I don't mean to be an "internet badass," but you seem like you're fourteen or fifteen, sixteen at the most. These are elementary positions you hold.
"...you seem like you're fourteen or fifteen, sixteen at the most. These are elementary positions you hold."
I understand that you want to be seen as if you are above me and talking down to me. I, however, want to talk about the facts.
It is a fact that matter can't create itself. Therefore, something other than the matter must have brought the matter into existence. And since matter can't be created from within the laws of physics, then something outside the laws made the matter.
@InternetDisciple That's just my honest opinion based on your performance so far. Plus, this is youtube - yay for ad hominem attacks! You should look up the Big Bang Theory. It says nothing about: Nothing turns into something. No other real scientific theory does. You're just setting up this claim yourself.
@NikTheJew Thats a specific take on religion - that some deity is affecting us. But take a step back to the overall theory that religion fits into which is intelligent design. Intelligent design places no warrants on any deity or force behind the formation of life and the universe other than that one may exist. There is no worship, no rituals, no dogma. Intelligent design is a valid theory due to the lack of certainty from traditional suggestions. ID is not religion - BUT all religions are ID
Like I said, I don't care for philosophy. I thought most scientists applied the law of conservation of matter, so the universe is eternal, but I like evolution > cosmology :) I have made the conclusion that murder is evil by a measure of its consequences. Murder is basically taking an innocent person's life (my def. of murder, anyway). It's my opinion that living > being dead, and most people would agree w/ me on that, so I conclude that murder is evil. Nothing supernatural or sure about it
That's not scientifically possible. The universe can't have an infinite past because infinity isn't a real number. Obviously, the universe came into existence at some point.
"I have made the conclusion that murder is evil..."
But you said that morals are relative to the person. I just want to be clear: do you believe in objective morality or not? If you don't, then you obviously don't believe that murder is inherently evil.
@InternetDisciple Infinity may be a concept, but as far as I've researched, there is no scientific consensus if the universe is eternal or not. Really, it seems impossible to even know. I said already, morals are relative. Relative and objective morality are pretty much mutually exclusive (at least to me, I'm not sure what other people would say about it). Like my example before, I think murder = evil, but a sociopath might not. Are we going to have to talk about Euthyphro's dilemma?
"...there is no scientific consensus if the universe is eternal or not."
You seem to be saying that you believe that the universe may have an eternal past even though infinity is not a real number. Is that what you are saying?
Regardless of how many people say that the universe has an infinite past, it is still impossible for the universe to have an infinite past.
Also, invoking an infinite past would also invoke the fallacy of infinite regress.
@InternetDisciple I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence pointing towards either conclusion, so I am simply speculating. "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV There's plenty more if u want any. How do u know Hitler believed in relative morals?
"I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence pointing towards either conclusion,"
I take it that you don't understand that invoking an infinite past also invokes the fallacy of infinite regress. This alone is absolute proof the the universe has a starting point.
I take it that you don't understand that the universe can't have an infinite past because infinity is not a real number. This alone is absolute scientific proof that the universe has a starting point.
@InternetDisciple Would you mind if we had this discussion on facebook or something similar? I'm not getting your messages (or mine for that matter) in their correct order...
I take it that you also believe that rape is not inherently evil. Adolph Hitler also thought as you. I, myself, say that rape and murder are always wrong because I believe in objective morality.
The belief in subjective morality led to the Hitler's gas chambers and Saddam Hussein's rape rooms.
@InternetDisciple Like I said, morals are relative. Either way, comparisons to hitler? Really? oldest cliche in the book. Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? If you accept that the bible is an accurate picture of God's morality, then you could also justify Hitler's gas chambers and Saddam's rape rooms, as both rape and genocide are done by God-fearing Jews in the old testament (supposedly ordered by God).
I merely pointed out where this kind of thinking has led. Hitler believed in relative moral. After all, if murder is not inherently evil, then who is to say that he should not have done what he did. One could only object with the force of one's own opinion.
"supposedly ordered by God"
Many people have told me that the God of the Bible has ordered murder and genocide, but they were unable to find a single verse to support their claim. You got one?
@InternetDisciple In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. -Hitler Saying I think murder and rape is always wrong is different than them actually being objective morals. I would convince someone not to rape by showing how it hurts the victim and society as a whole.
@InternetDisciple I wish YouTube had a longer character limit. Anyways, you didn't respond to Euthyphro's dilemma (sorry if I ignore the point on the origin of the universe, I want to stay on topic). Is what is good commanded by god because it's good, or good because it's commanded by God? Yes, we can only convince people w/ our own opinions, because there is nothing else. say the bible has perfect morals all u want, but that won't convince anyone but a Christian literalist
Christianity is the only religion that offers a payment for sin. In a court of law, if the fine is paid then the criminal is allowed to go free. I did the crime, the Lord Jesus paid my fine by dying in my place.
"Couldn't have God simply forgiven?"
With no justice for the victims of the crimes? No.
No just judge would allow a crime to go unpunished.
@InternetDisciple But the original crime was eating a piece of fruit... and Jesus apparently lets criminals free all the time, all you have to do is pray. When all you have to do is ask for forgiveness, that is not justice. And infinite punishment for finite crime is not justice.
"But the original crime was eating a piece of fruit"
You forgot: disobeying one's parent, not putting God first, coveting... all that by one action.
"and Jesus apparently lets criminals free all the time, all you have to do is pray."
You seem to be forgetting that the criminals that the Lord Jesus set free have a just payment for their crimes. But I do agree with you that the criminals did nothing to deserve to be set free by Him.
@InternetDisciple "You forgot: disobeying one's parent, not putting God first, coveting... all that by one action." I don't know what you mean. Can you clarify for me, please? I'm referring to original sin, where all humans are punished for the "crime" of eating a piece of fruit, which isn't justified given that they wouldn't know it was a crime until after they did it, because the fruit had magical properties to give Adam and Eve awareness of good and evil.
You said that the original crime was eating a piece of fruit, but you forgot that Adam and Eve also disobeyed the Lord God, the only Father that they knew. They also did not put the Lord God first in their lives, so that means that they broke the first commandment. The Bible says that the fruit looked good to Eve's eye, so that means that she coveted what was not here. They stole the fruit.
@InternetDisciple But didn't they not know that that was bad until after they ate the fruit? It was the fruit that somehow gave them the knowledge of good and evil, correct?
"...where all humans are punished for the "crime" of eating a piece of fruit,"
Not true. Anyone that goes to hell will go to hell for their own crimes.
"...which isn't justified given that they wouldn't know it was a crime until after they did it,"
You're wrong again.
The Bible clearly says that, before Eve ate the fruit, she stated that it was forbidden. She may not have fully understood everything, but she clearly knew enough.
@InternetDisciple But my understanding of the bible story from my 13 years or so was that the nature of sin was passed from adam and eve, and people wouldn't murder/steal, etc. if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the fruit. So indirectly it would be like we were being punished, right?
"So indirectly it would be like we were being punished, right?"
Wrong.
If you don't ever sin, then you will earn heaven. Nobody will be sent to hell because Adam and Eve ate the fruit; people will be sent to hell for their own crimes.
@InternetDisciple Maybe you misunderstood what I said. A&E ate the fruit -> sin enters world, passes to all of humanity -> humanity now has the capability to do good and/or evil consciously. So what I was trying to point out was that we could not steal/kill/murder/etc. if A&E had not eaten the fruit, indirectly punishing us for what they did, by giving us the power to sin (assuming we did not have it, because A&E got that from the fruit.)
"... humanity now has the capability to do good and/or evil consciously."
As I already pointed out, the Bible says that, before she ate the fruit, Eve indicated that it was wrong to do so. So your above statement is wrong because humanity always had the capability for good and evil.
Eve understood good and evil more fully after she ate the fruit.
"...by giving us the power to sin (assuming we did not have it, because A&E got that from the fruit.)"
If Adam and Eve could not sin before they ate the fruit, then how did they steal the fruit before they ate it? How could they disobey the Lord God before they ate the fruit?
Again, Eve's statements show that she knew it was wrong to eat the fruit before she ate the fruit.
@InternetDisciple Well any crime is finite, given that humans are finite beings. The point is that for the same reason it's illegal (and immoral) to torture me in your basement, it's wrong for God to burn me for all eternity. How is setting someone on fire justice for anything? Who deserves to be burned forever for anything?
@InternetDisciple Well strictly no since they'll be gone eventually... as depressing as it may seem all humans do die eventually. But that's beside the point. "...crimes against an infinite God mean infinity in the lake of fire. Why would you think that it would be any other way?" Why does that seem right to you?
@InternetDisciple "So you are saying that they will get their loved one back. Exactly how long will the murder victim be dead?" That's not what I said. I said (or implied, rather) that they will not forever be without their loved one, because "they" won't exist forever. Anyway, that part DOESN'T matter. As I already said, I don't see the logic behind punishing someone for eternity for something finite (finite being with limits and bounds)
@InternetDisciple Definition of Finite: Having limits or bounds. Humans have a limited amount of good or bad that we can do (a finite amount). After we die, for instance, we cannot do anymore good or bad. By that definition, every crime is finite.
You are correct when you say that there are a limited amount of crimes that a human can do, but it is faulty logic to then conclude that, because the number of crimes is limited, then the crimes themselves are also limited.
You say that crimes are limited. If someone tells you a lie, then at what point will you never have been lied to?
@InternetDisciple "You say that crimes are limited. If someone tells you a lie, then at what point will you never have been lied to?" By that logic, everything that has existed is infinite simply by existing
"By that logic, everything that has existed is infinite simply by existing."
I think that you are somehow agreeing with me that, if someone lies to you, then there will never be a point at which you will never have been lied to.
Crimes have a metaphysical aspect to them which never go away.
@InternetDisciple Well I've heard it from multiple people, but I have reached that conclusion from looking at history and man's tendency to favor war over diplomacy, and the 99% of all the species on the earth ever have been extinct. and with all the uncertainty in the universe (meteors, nuclear weapons, floods from global warming, colliding galaxies, the sun dying, etc. Somehow I doubt humanity will survive for more than a billion years (if that)
@InternetDisciple Please don't label me. I'm not a fatalist, I simply think it's likely(I'm not much for philosophy anyway). The human race could develop hyperspace travel in a billion years to escape the sun's destruction, right? Good and evil to me are labels. good and evil are not "things." I do not think there is a god. The arguments I have heard for one's existence are pretty pitiful. Why do you think there's a creator?
@InternetDisciple "So you do believe in an ultimate meaning for life." Wouldn't fatalism be the position that thinks that? I don't think our destinies (fates, whatever) are written in stone. "I believe in science." Believe in science? Not in the religious sense, right? I think trust is more accurate than faith when speaking of science. "matter can't bring itself into existence." Who said it did? I think murder is evil, but a psycho wouldn't... Morals are relative to the person and their effects.
"Wouldn't fatalism be the position that thinks that?"
No. You don't know what fatalism is?
"Believe in science? Not in the religious sense, right"
I'm not certain what you mean by that. I just made a simple statement: I believe in science.
"Who said it did?"
Stephen Hawking, among others. Lots of evolutionists and atheists have told me that they believe that matter could somehow create itself. I know, I know; they obviously don't believe in the laws of physics.
@InternetDisciple Just payment for sins? Are you kidding me? To get to this so called "just payment for sins" Christianity, really Paul, had to invent the totally unjust concept of original sin based on the myth of Adam & Eve. And that is the very definition of a Con Game: Invent a problem, convince people they have that problem, and offer your scheme as the only solution to that problem. I am physically incapable of believing such bull shit!
@InternetDisciple Orginal sin is not a Jewish concept. Paul took the myth of Adam and Eve and reinterpreted it to support his invention of original sin. My post does not ignore the basis of your post. It denies it. The whole concept of sin, original or otherwise, is unjust and based on the myth of a tyrant god. I'm sure you'll put in your self-righteous last word. Enjoy it alone. This is my last word.
Genesis was written thousands of years before Paul was born.Genesis says that Adam & Eve were the first ones to sin. But you say that Paul is the one that came up with it.
Why should anyone believe you and not Genesis?
"The whole concept of sin, original or otherwise, is unjust..."
Can you prove your assertion or is this merely something that you want to believe?
"This is my last word."
You're not going to defend your assertion? You want people to believe what you say by blind faith?
Honestly you need to look at evidence like a court case in a way that would have made great thinkers like Francis Bacon proud almost like a murder case. You can find the weapon and a motive but that's still not 100% definitive proof. The only way to definitively prove murderer guilty is to take the victim and the murderer and reproduce the circumstances, turn back time and observe it. That is impossible.
@GKCanman The best you can do is find multiple pieces of unique evidence that confirm the act. That is called concordance. The weapon and a motive might not be enough but if you found finger prints, a witness and a history of voilent acts then it is safe to assume the causes by looking at their effects. The less assumptions and, in general, the simpler it is the stronger the conclusion is.
@GKCanman Take the murder analogy and apply it to evolution you can see how it fits togeather. Does evolution have a "motive"? Yes, it's called survival. It has a "murder weapon" called natural selection and random mutation. It has a "violent history" called fossils. You can find "finger prints" in DNA evidence. You can find a "witness" in observing, for example, the different breeds of dogs originating. With all of these pieces of evidence is it fair to assume that evolution is "the murderer?"
@InternetDisciple Sure, i can talk about different DNA evidence. For example you can traces of fusion from 24 pairs of chromasomes into 23 pairs. There's also the sheer similarities between the DNA. Not just the parts that code for more purposeful proteins but also the more useless segments that dont do much to help. You can also find vestibular organs such as muscles for tails when obviously there arent any.
@InternetDisciple As far as dog breeding being evidence, if you can walk 10 feet then it's reasonable to assume that you can walk a mile.You can breed dogs to be hairless, tailless, smarter, more social, with wierd bone structure, with webbed paws, with stomaches that can handle strange diets and you can even make some breeds that can't breed with others. For example you can't breed teacup breeds with great danes and only certain breeds can hybridize with wolves while others can't.
"...if you can walk 10 feet then it's reasonable to assume that you can walk a mile."
I think that you are saying that you are basing your beliefs that dogs came from non-dogs on assumptions. Is that what you are saying?
"You can breed dogs to be hairless, tailless..."
How is that evidence that dogs supposedly came from non-dogs? So far, you've only gave examples of dogs bringing forth dogs. Is that really all that you've got?
@InternetDisciple It's true that dogs give birth to dogs. However, was there always dogs? No. You can only find things that look somewhat like a dog but has some major differences in things like bone structure. Is it safe to assume that these ancient creatures could give rise to different breeds?
@InternetDisciple Ok and what exactly make the bible authoritative? The bible has not met any burden of proof for its supernatural claims and is therefore heresy.
1) Do I think there is an inherent morality? No. Why should I?
2) Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is an inherent morality. Why is the bible representative of that morality?
3) Is forced slavery inherently wrong? Not according to the bible. There are 613 commandments in the bible and nowhere does it say slavery is wrong. But is does say that "they will become your property... You... can make them slaves for life" (Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV)
You InternetDisciple said "The Lord God did not condone slavery.". Can you back up that assertion? Where does he say in the bible that he does not support slavery and that it is wrong?
The fact is he doesn't! But here is some stuff he does say.
"they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life"
"since the slave is their property."
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear."
Well, I can't disprove a negative. However, I can point out the total lack of any verses where the Lord God condones slavery.
"they will become your property."
Again, the Lord God did not say that this pleased Him. Do you have a verse in which the Lord God condoned slavery? As I said, the Lord God did regulate slavery. Do you not understand the difference?
Also, just to be clear, are you saying that rape and murder are not inherently wrong?
I have already shown how the god of the bible condones slavery not just regulates it. You may have not seen the second part of my reply and I apologize again for having to split it.
Yes I am saying that rape and murder are not INHERENTLY wrong. We as a society get to decide what we want our society to be like. In general we all benefit from a society where there is no murder or rape. But the universe as a whole does not care if we murder or rape it makes no difference.
"I have already shown how the god of the bible condones slavery..."
No you have not. You have posted some verses where the Lord God regulates slavery, but you've yet to post a verse where the Lord God condones slavery.
"Yes I am saying that rape and murder are not INHERENTLY wrong."
Scary. Hitler also believed that murder and rape were not inherently wrong. Do you tell your dates that you believe that rape is not inherently wrong?
"No you have not"... shown slavery is condoned by the bible.
Yes I have, in the second part of that previous message which you may have missed. If you have in fact seen that part but still disagree please post your refutation as a reply to that second part of the message.
Nothing is INHERENTLY wrong. Give me a reason to think anything is?
If murder is inherently wrong than your god is evil as he kills between 2.5million - 25million people in the bible. The devil kills 10
Those quotes from (Leviticus 25:44-46) (Exodus 21:21) and (Ephesians 6:5) do not show god regulating slavery. The god of the bible clearly condones it.
How is "You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" regulating anything? It is saying that it is acceptable to own people! If you don't think it is acceptable to own people, then you don't get your morality from the bible.
"How is "You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" regulating anything?"
My friend, telling someone how to do something is not the same thing as condoning it.
Either you can find a verse where the Lord God condones slavery (something like: 'I, the Lord God, say that slavery is a good thing and I want you to do a lot of it to honor Me.'), or you can't. (Hint: you can't. But good luck!)
It is clear that no matter what I say you won't accept that the god of the bible condones slavery.
But you clearly are very opposed to slavery yourself. You don't just not condone it you adamantly oppose it as "inherently wrong". You claim that the bible is the source of inherent morality so since, in your opinion, slavery is inherently wrong we must find that in the bible. I am unaware of any part of the bible that says slavery is inherently wrong. Could you please inform me
Which 10 commandments? The Catholic? The Hebrew? The Protestant? The 10 from Exodus 20? The 10 from Exodus 34? What about the other 603 commandments in the bible?
In NONE of these does it ever say that slavery is wrong!
Let me guess. You will argue that slavery is a theft of a persons freedom so "Thou shalt not steal" demonstrates that god is against slavery?
Well that is a pretty pathetic argument. If you can't understand why than I guess this conversation is over because you are way too close minded for me to even bother trying to convince you. I just hope you do some real objective searching for the truth the actual truth mate.
"You will argue that slavery is a theft of a persons freedom..."
You're wrong again.
Theft is the taking of the one person's labor that earned it and making it the property of another person who did not earn it. Forced slavery is the taking of one person's labor and making it the property of another person that did not earn it.
Is this stuff not taught in school? Why is it that so many people are so ignorant? Public education, I guess.
I personally believe that the beggining of the universe as we know it today came from a great cosmic explosion. but since i was not there to witness it i can only formulate my oppinion based on the very hard work of those intellectuals who have put the time and effort into trying to understand our begginings. :) hope that helps
@InternetDisciple YOU CANNOT compare a building to the universe, such a simple way to try and link two very disimilar events is basically a slap in the face of intellectual thinkers . and your question is flawed my good sir, the process that took place is one i nor those who think as i do can possibly prove 100 percent b/c we have no way to replicate it. but using what we know about the universe we can make a plausible theory.
i am terminating our conversation because your question is flawed and to provide an answer would make me feel less intelligent cmon its a loaded question and if you cant figure it out there is little to no hope for you and i told what i thought happened and it wasnt a old man playing on universe tycoon. im done with you leave me be
"i am terminating our conversation because your question is flawed..."
You don't seem to be a logical person, my friend. Either something brought everything into existence or nothing brought everything into existence. There is no other option.
Stephen Hawking says that he believes that the universe created itself out of nothing. His understanding of basic physics is obviously flawed, but at least he knows that something created everything.
and a 2000 year old mistranslated story book does not provide solid evidence to how we or the universe came to be. sorry dude thats my answer to your pseudo question :) i hope that helps
"You will argue that slavery is a theft of a persons freedom so "Thou shalt not steal" demonstrates that god is against slavery?
Well that is a pretty pathetic argument."
You asked me a question, and before you hear my answer, you say that it is a pathetic argument. My friend, you really should hear my argument before you cast judgment.
So, you are trying to suggest that telling the truth make a liar into a non-liar?
If so, then by not murdering one person, that makes a murderer into a non-murderer?
In a court of law, the judge is not interested in the number of people that the criminal didn't murder. The judge is there to talk about the murder that did take place. 'Yeah, judge, I murder that guy, but look at all the people that I didn't murder'. I don't think that any judge will buy that. Do you?
@InternetDisciple All im saying is that should a man b judged by individual acts or should he be judged for his entire lifes actions if he is judged by god?
Is it allways wrong to lie? is it allways wrong to hate? jesus even told his own desciples to hate you know.
"All im saying is that should a man b judged by individual acts or should he be judged for his entire lifes actions..."
Try that at a traffic stop: 'Officer, I only broke the speed limit this one time. You should judge me by the number of times that I have not sped.' I don't think that he would buy it.
And it is only illicit lies that are wrong. And it is okay to hate bad things. I hate it when I sin. I hate the killing of babies in the womb.
@InternetDisciple So your god is as simple as a human then? i understand.
Is it right to hate you father? your mother? your children? and your own life? jesus told the desciples that if they didnt do that then they couldnt be his desciples.
2 questions tough. Is your god omniscient (all knowing) and do we have free will?
In context, that is referring to an action, not a feeling. To hand someone a glass of water is a loving action. To call someone a bad name when you shouldn't is an action of hate.
Yes, the Lord God is all knowing. And, yes, we have free will.
@InternetDisciple So your god knew before he created everything who would sin? what they would do? he knew that adam and eve would eat that forbiden fruit? He knew that lucifer would dissobey him? he knew he would have to drown the world and save a drunkard and his family? He already knew before he created anything exactly the fate of every single human that eves has existed or ever will exist?
If he did indeed know all that then arent we just puppets in a puppetshow?
"So your god knew before he created everything who would sin?"
Yes.
"If he did indeed know all that then aren't we just puppets in a puppetshow?"
No. Preknowledge does not equate to predestination. Just because I saw the game live and then later watched a recording of it with my friend, my preknowledge of the game's outcome does not mean that I predestinated the outcome of the game.
to quiet
rngjudgement 7 months ago
I hate when atheists have a problem accepting blind faith. That is so hypocritical. Virtually EVERY atheist, passive or active, has so much blind faith and yet aren't honest or intelligent enough to admit it or recognize it. Sad world.
psford1 8 months ago
@psford1 Accepting blind faith like, "My wife isn't cheating on me," is different from accepting blind faith like, "There is a God and he is going to smite me if I eat meat on Fridays." I can, based on other inherent, real statistics based on my wife's relationship with me assume that she isn't cheating on me. There is no way whatsoever and never has been a way to measure the presence of a deity and whether or not its affecting us. Take some courses in logic. Please.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
My friend, it is not blind faith to believe in a Creator. After all, matter can't create itself.
It is blind faith, however, to believe that there is no Creator. There is no evidence for that and there is evidence for a Creator.
But I do understand that many people choose to not follow the evidence.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple That is not evidence. Evidence is having demonstrable application when using the scientific method. In other words, evidence means you can provide that it actually happened, can break it apart and reconstruct it, or can observe it within the natural universe (and this observation must be re-tested and re-tested in any way, shape or form to prove that it actually exists). That's not what ANY religion does. You do NOT have evidence.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"That is not evidence."
I guess that you also believe that a building is not absolute proof of a builder.
I, however, know that a building is absolute proof of a builder. I also know from science that matter can't create itself, so something other than the matter must have brought the matter into existence.
But I do understand that many people choose to not follow the evidence.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple This is a common fallacy - it is known as the Watchmaker analogy. It's been refuted, by many people. Here's one: "if complex things must have been intelligently designed by something more complex than themselves, then anything posited as this complex designer (i.e. God) must also have been designed by something yet more complex." How did your GOD come into being, then? You.Do.NOT.Have.Evidence.You.Have.The.Lack.Of.It.And.Terribly.Dull.Logistical.Talents.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"it is known as the Watchmaker analogy."
You're wrong again.
The watchmaker analogy is one of design. I am talking about the nature of existence. The building, by the nature of it's existence, requires a builder. Since matter can't create itself, then obviously something other than the matter brought the matter into existence.
It is obvious. But I do understand that many people choose to not follow the evidence.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple ... So obviously God couldn't have been brought into existence without a designer. Thanks, you just proved yourself wrong. Like I was saying.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
"So obviously God couldn't have been brought into existence without a designer."
You made a number of mistakes in this sentence.
Firstly, my argument about the nature of existence does not try to name the Creator as you have done.
Secondly, you are making the mistake of assuming that something metaphysical would be bound by the laws of physics (something metaphysical would not necessarily require a Creator).
And you still seem to be talking about design instead of the nature of existence.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple There is no evidence of metaphysics within history or the realms of contemporary physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics. Metaphysical claims are just claims. They mean nothing. This is what you said: " know that a building is absolute proof of a builder. I also know from science that matter can't create itself, so something other than the matter must have brought the matter into existence." So something must have brought God into existence according to YOUR proof.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"There is no evidence of metaphysics within history or the realms of contemporary physics..."
It is known from science that since matter can't create itself, then something other than the matter must have brought the matter into existence. And since matter can't be created from within the laws of physics, then something from outside the laws of physics, must have brought the matter into existence.
It is obvious that there is a metaphysical Creator.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Except there are plenty of theories, outside of the Big Bang, that explain the requirements for the beginning of the universe. Not definitively knowing how the universe was created does not give anyone the right to make up their own reason without sufficient evidence (not philosophical evidence, since that's not evidence).
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Not definitely know how the universe..."
You STILL don't seem to understand my argument. I am not talking about HOW the universe was started. My argument is not one of design. I am talking about the nature of existence.
Let me know if you still don't understand.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"So something must have brought God into existence according to YOUR proof."
You're wrong again.
The proof that I gave only applies to something that is bound by the laws of physics. Let me know if you don't understand why.
Also, my argument about the nature of existence does not try to name the Creator as you did in the quote above.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Please respond to the questions I've asked you in full (which you've ignored) and please stop making circular arguments. Do you really, really think you're making any kind of point here? You're not using physics at your disposal, because if you were you'd understand why the Big Bang, fundamentally, makes a whole lot of sense - and why God certainly doesn't. "Forget Jesus. The stars died so we could be here today."
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Please respond to the questions I've asked you in full (which you've ignored)..."
I notice that you failed to say which question is it that you say that I've ignored.
"...and please stop making circular arguments."
Strawman. I've not made any circular arguments.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Your entire argument is circular, actually. Also, we are limited a set amount of characters. You've ignored my, "Even if God is immaterial and not physical, what evidence do you have of that? Simply stating, 'Matter cannot come into being from nothing....' isn't evidence, it's just a claim" and "If God is material somehow, how did he come into existence?" Also, did you know that the Big Bang isn't NOTHING creating SOMETHING? Did you know that you half-wit?
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Your entire argument is circular,"
Strawman. I've used no circular argument.
"You've ignored my, "Even if God...""
Perhaps you missed where I pointed out that only things that are bound by the laws of physics necessarily require a Creator. If you did not understand why that answers your question, please let me know.
"If God is material somehow, how did he come into existence?"
I said that the Creator is metaphysical.
Are you not reading my posts?
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Know what, I'll bite again. I lied. Luckily it's not a sin to do so and God doesn't exist. Prove that something - one thing - is NOT bound by the laws of physics. Again, who ever stated that nothing came from something? I didn't. The Big Bang theory does not state that. No theory on the beginning of the universe states, "nothing was there and then there was something." Why can you just suddenly assume that there is something not bound by the laws of physics?
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Prove that something - one thing - is not bound by the laws of physics."
Easy enough.
Information is metaphysical. Destroy a CD and the info written on it could be lost. But matter/energy can't be create or destroyed. Ideas, too, are metaphysical.
Also, matter exists. And matter can't be created from within the laws of physics. So obviously something metaphysical brought the matter into existence.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Matter can be created to form new versions of matter - I.E., stars going super-nova and spreading their cosmic elements to far away planets. Also, spectral class stars emitting enough radiation to produce an ozone layer on planets in habitable zones. We have seen evidence of this today. Matter spreads and begins to form new complex, seemingly designed pieces of matter.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Matter can be created to form new versions of matter"
But from where do you say that matter ultimately came?
Obviously matter can't bring itself into existence.
I understand that you are merely trying to obfuscate. If a person comes across a building, that person knows that there was a builder. The fact that matter exists proves that there is a Matter Maker.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Also, just so you know, incessantly reffering back to, "Please tell me if you don't understand," and "No, you do not understand" is a subtle, yet effective form of ad hominem attack. You've been doing it in almost every post. It has no bearing on the argument - it's a bland assumption that I don't understand your silly argument that has been around forever.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Again, who ever stated that nothing came from something? I didn't."
I didn't either.
"Why can you just suddenly assume that there is something not bound by the laws of physics?"
I've made no such assumption. I merely followed the evidence. Matter can't create itself, my friend.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple You're saying that all evidence points to a deity, even when all real, hard, demonstrable, humans can understand it evidence says otherwise. If your argument is good, you should try to go onto one of those, "Win a million dollars for proof of God" websites. There's a lot of them from plenty of scientific foundations and they WILL pay you if your argument is right. As I've said, you're just regurgitating an age old argument that has never made sense.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"You're saying that all evidence points to a deity,"
Well, I am using the more generic term "Creator". If you want to claim that this Creator is a deity, feel free to do so. My argument merely points out the need of a metaphysical Creator.
"...even when all real, hard, demonstrable, humans can understand it evidence says otherwise."
So you say. However, even little children correctly understand that the Christmas presents did not put themselves under the tree.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"There's a lot of them from plenty of scientific foundations and the WILL pay you if your argument is right."
I thank you for your kind words, but the fact that matter can't create itself was known waaaaay before I was born.
So, I really can't take credit.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple That's what I'm saying: your argument has been scientifically refuted by the most brilliant scientific minds in our country. Sam Harris the neruoscientist, Richard Dawkins the evolutionary Biologist - Daniel Dennett, the philosopher - they all have tackled the argument. Everyone has. "Nothing cannot come from something DOES NOT EQUAL EVIDENCE FOR GOD YOU FUCKING IMBECILE"
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew Or something cannot come from nothing does not equal evidence of God, rather.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Or something cannot come from nothing does not equal evidence of God, rather."
Again, I've not tried to name the Creator, as you have here. I've merely pointed out the scientific need of a metaphysical Creator.
Again, even little children correctly understand that the Christmas presents did not put themselves under the tree.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"That's what I'm saying: your argument has been scientifically refuted..."
So you say. However, creationists can still point to the fact that matter can't create itself.
If my argument has already, as you say, been refuted, then it should be no problem for you to refute it here. Somehow, I doubt that you will be able to prove that matter could somehow create itself.
But, hey, give it your best shot if you please.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple I have already answered all your questions. I'm sorry. I have. I have already refuted why simply stating that particular law of science doesn't make you right. Especially not so because humanity can never definitively know whether or not the universe has always existed or came to exist. You are overturning a lot of possibilities because you seem to not be able to get that tune out of your head. Start trying to ... think a little more.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Especially not so because humanity can never definitively know whether or not the universe has always existed..."
You're wrong again.
The universe can't have an infinite past because infinity is not a real number.
Also, invoking an infinite past also invokes the fallacy of infinite regress.
Start trying to... think about your unscientific positions a little more.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple I don't think of unscientific positions ever. Until science, all we could do is bargain and hope. We could never get a 100% answer. Until the scientific method, we had no techniques of demonstrating whether or not something was right or wrong, or real, or even what some things were. Scientific thought allowed us to do this. Not metaphysics. Not some unnamed, undefined creator.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"I don't think of unscientific positions ever."
Yes, you did. You suggested that it is not known if the universe had a infinite past. It is not scientifically possible.
Would you like me to repost your unscientific quote? How about if I repost my debunking of your unscientific suggestion for you?
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Scientific thought allowed us to do this. Not metaphysics. Not some unnamed, undefined creator."
Uh, I think that whatever brought the matter into existence that makes up our bodies deserves some credit.
Even little children correctly understand that the Christmas presents did not put themselves under the tree. You do know that even little children have such a correct understanding about the Christmas presents, don't you?
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Really? How do you know? I don't think you can prove any of this - this is essentially a small part of quantum theory - and there's a reason why quantum theory is misusing the scientific understanding of the word "theory." Quantum theory is speculation and guesswork. "Theories" refer to well-stated and well-tested scientific facts. Your speculation about infinite regresses and the beginning of our universe is nothing more than speculation. Can't prove a thing.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Your speculation about infinite regresses..."
You seem to be admitting that you are ignorant about infinite regress and why the universe cannot be infinitely old. Allow me to explain it to you:
In explaining what, for example, caused a rock to fall, one could, if there is an infinite past, could always ask: And what caused that?
Let me know if you still don't understand why you are invoking the logical fallacy of infinite regress.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Also, what I just wrote I've said in a bunch of different ways already.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Neuro*
NikTheJew 8 months ago
Comment removed
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"I'll let them legislate at this point of the debate..."
Legislation does not decide science. Facts are stubborn things. If matter can't create itself, then matter can't create itself.
But, as I said, some people follow the evidence and some people don't. The ones that don't may sometimes want to legislate what people believe. For myself, I prefer to follow the evidence.
Matter can't create itself, my friend.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Also I hope you know if this were a formal debate you would have been laughed out of the room a long time ago. You're making non-argument after non-argument. You consistently ignore my points and tell me what I'm actually saying, replacing them with your own thoughts. Nothing you've said has been logically fluent. It's gibberish. I think you suffer from Cognitive Dissonance. Read about it. You're way too authoritative with your non-facts and non-arguments. Make no sense.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
I think that if this were a formal debate, you would have been laughed out of the room a long time ago. You're making non-argument after non-argument. You consistently ignore my points and try to tell me what I'm saying, replacing them with your own thoughts. You seem to need to rely on personal attacks such as saying that I suffer from "Congnitive Dissonance".
If your arguments held water, then you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Nothing you've said has been logically fluent."
Really? Nothing?
So you saying that you believe that I am wrong about matter not being able to create itself?
Please let me know.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple No. Not understanding fundamental principles within Cosmology's most rudimentary concepts is why you're not being logically fluent. You're simply just re-iterating old apologist rhetoric. It's boring and makes no logical sense. It's been refuted dozens of times. Just shut up and get to reading. You just haven't read enough, that's really the problem here. It's ALWAYS the problem.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"Not understanding fundamental principles within Cosmology's most rudimentary concepts is why you're not being logically fluent."
So you say. However, I say that it is logical to come to the conclusion that there is a builder when confronted by a building.
"It's been refuted dozens of times."
Really? The fact that a building requires a builder has been refuted? Please show me.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
Comment removed
NikTheJew 8 months ago
Spare me, because I'm done arguing with you. I'll let the legion of atheist and Christian fanatics alike come onto this comment section whenever they like and see who is making more sense. I'll let them legislate at this point in the debate who is speaking out of their ass and who isn't. I'm sorry, man, I don't mean to be an "internet badass," but you seem like you're fourteen or fifteen, sixteen at the most. These are elementary positions you hold.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"...you seem like you're fourteen or fifteen, sixteen at the most. These are elementary positions you hold."
I understand that you want to be seen as if you are above me and talking down to me. I, however, want to talk about the facts.
It is a fact that matter can't create itself. Therefore, something other than the matter must have brought the matter into existence. And since matter can't be created from within the laws of physics, then something outside the laws made the matter.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple That's just my honest opinion based on your performance so far. Plus, this is youtube - yay for ad hominem attacks! You should look up the Big Bang Theory. It says nothing about: Nothing turns into something. No other real scientific theory does. You're just setting up this claim yourself.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew
"yay for ad hominem attacks!"
Since I have the facts on my side, I don't feel the need to rely on them.
"It says nothing about: Nothing turns into something."
I also believe that something brought everything into existence. Obviously matter can't create itself. You seem to be coming around.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@NikTheJew Thats a specific take on religion - that some deity is affecting us. But take a step back to the overall theory that religion fits into which is intelligent design. Intelligent design places no warrants on any deity or force behind the formation of life and the universe other than that one may exist. There is no worship, no rituals, no dogma. Intelligent design is a valid theory due to the lack of certainty from traditional suggestions. ID is not religion - BUT all religions are ID
psford1 7 months ago
@ShogunnSlimm
What makes you say that, my friend?
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
Like I said, I don't care for philosophy. I thought most scientists applied the law of conservation of matter, so the universe is eternal, but I like evolution > cosmology :) I have made the conclusion that murder is evil by a measure of its consequences. Murder is basically taking an innocent person's life (my def. of murder, anyway). It's my opinion that living > being dead, and most people would agree w/ me on that, so I conclude that murder is evil. Nothing supernatural or sure about it
acrazyone1 9 months ago
"...so the universe is eternal,"
That's not scientifically possible. The universe can't have an infinite past because infinity isn't a real number. Obviously, the universe came into existence at some point.
"I have made the conclusion that murder is evil..."
But you said that morals are relative to the person. I just want to be clear: do you believe in objective morality or not? If you don't, then you obviously don't believe that murder is inherently evil.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Infinity may be a concept, but as far as I've researched, there is no scientific consensus if the universe is eternal or not. Really, it seems impossible to even know. I said already, morals are relative. Relative and objective morality are pretty much mutually exclusive (at least to me, I'm not sure what other people would say about it). Like my example before, I think murder = evil, but a sociopath might not. Are we going to have to talk about Euthyphro's dilemma?
acrazyone1 9 months ago
"...there is no scientific consensus if the universe is eternal or not."
You seem to be saying that you believe that the universe may have an eternal past even though infinity is not a real number. Is that what you are saying?
Regardless of how many people say that the universe has an infinite past, it is still impossible for the universe to have an infinite past.
Also, invoking an infinite past would also invoke the fallacy of infinite regress.
Let me know if you still don't understand.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence pointing towards either conclusion, so I am simply speculating. "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV There's plenty more if u want any. How do u know Hitler believed in relative morals?
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence pointing towards either conclusion,"
I take it that you don't understand that invoking an infinite past also invokes the fallacy of infinite regress. This alone is absolute proof the the universe has a starting point.
I take it that you don't understand that the universe can't have an infinite past because infinity is not a real number. This alone is absolute scientific proof that the universe has a starting point.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"Deuterononmy 7:1-2,"
That verse does not contain an endorsement by the Lord God of genocide. He is talking about war. Let me know if you don't understand the difference.
"There's plenty more if u want any."
I'm still waiting on the first one. Care to try again?
"How do u know Hitler believed in relative morals?"
You seem ignorant of the fact that the nazis made it legal to kill Jews. Are you ignorant of that fact?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Would you mind if we had this discussion on facebook or something similar? I'm not getting your messages (or mine for that matter) in their correct order...
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
I prefer this format.
And I don't mind if we get them out of order.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"...morals are relative."
I take it that you also believe that rape is not inherently evil. Adolph Hitler also thought as you. I, myself, say that rape and murder are always wrong because I believe in objective morality.
The belief in subjective morality led to the Hitler's gas chambers and Saddam Hussein's rape rooms.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Like I said, morals are relative. Either way, comparisons to hitler? Really? oldest cliche in the book. Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? If you accept that the bible is an accurate picture of God's morality, then you could also justify Hitler's gas chambers and Saddam's rape rooms, as both rape and genocide are done by God-fearing Jews in the old testament (supposedly ordered by God).
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"...comparisons to hitler?"
I merely pointed out where this kind of thinking has led. Hitler believed in relative moral. After all, if murder is not inherently evil, then who is to say that he should not have done what he did. One could only object with the force of one's own opinion.
"supposedly ordered by God"
Many people have told me that the God of the Bible has ordered murder and genocide, but they were unable to find a single verse to support their claim. You got one?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"...morals are relative."
Using your position, how would you convince someone to not rape or murder?
Also, did you understand why the universe could not be infinitely old?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. -Hitler Saying I think murder and rape is always wrong is different than them actually being objective morals. I would convince someone not to rape by showing how it hurts the victim and society as a whole.
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"I would convince someone not to rape by showing how it hurts the victim..."
So you are saying that hurting people is inherently wrong?
Do you have an answer that wouldn't invoke the logical fallacy of begging the question?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple I wish YouTube had a longer character limit. Anyways, you didn't respond to Euthyphro's dilemma (sorry if I ignore the point on the origin of the universe, I want to stay on topic). Is what is good commanded by god because it's good, or good because it's commanded by God? Yes, we can only convince people w/ our own opinions, because there is nothing else. say the bible has perfect morals all u want, but that won't convince anyone but a Christian literalist
acrazyone1 9 months ago
"Obviously they can't all be right." That's right, but they can all be wrong.
Kailoa36 9 months ago
@Kailoa36
They could all be wrong. Of course, that doesn't mean that they are all wrong.
Christianity is the only religion that offers a just means for the forgiveness of sins: Christianity has a just payment for sins.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple What's just about Christianity? And what's just about human sacrifice? Couldn't have God simply forgiven?
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"What's just about Christianity?"
Good question, my friend.
Christianity is the only religion that offers a payment for sin. In a court of law, if the fine is paid then the criminal is allowed to go free. I did the crime, the Lord Jesus paid my fine by dying in my place.
"Couldn't have God simply forgiven?"
With no justice for the victims of the crimes? No.
No just judge would allow a crime to go unpunished.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple But the original crime was eating a piece of fruit... and Jesus apparently lets criminals free all the time, all you have to do is pray. When all you have to do is ask for forgiveness, that is not justice. And infinite punishment for finite crime is not justice.
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"But the original crime was eating a piece of fruit"
You forgot: disobeying one's parent, not putting God first, coveting... all that by one action.
"and Jesus apparently lets criminals free all the time, all you have to do is pray."
You seem to be forgetting that the criminals that the Lord Jesus set free have a just payment for their crimes. But I do agree with you that the criminals did nothing to deserve to be set free by Him.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple "You forgot: disobeying one's parent, not putting God first, coveting... all that by one action." I don't know what you mean. Can you clarify for me, please? I'm referring to original sin, where all humans are punished for the "crime" of eating a piece of fruit, which isn't justified given that they wouldn't know it was a crime until after they did it, because the fruit had magical properties to give Adam and Eve awareness of good and evil.
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"Can you clarify for me,"
Easy enough.
You said that the original crime was eating a piece of fruit, but you forgot that Adam and Eve also disobeyed the Lord God, the only Father that they knew. They also did not put the Lord God first in their lives, so that means that they broke the first commandment. The Bible says that the fruit looked good to Eve's eye, so that means that she coveted what was not here. They stole the fruit.
I just meant that you glazed it over, my friend.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple But didn't they not know that that was bad until after they ate the fruit? It was the fruit that somehow gave them the knowledge of good and evil, correct?
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"...where all humans are punished for the "crime" of eating a piece of fruit,"
Not true. Anyone that goes to hell will go to hell for their own crimes.
"...which isn't justified given that they wouldn't know it was a crime until after they did it,"
You're wrong again.
The Bible clearly says that, before Eve ate the fruit, she stated that it was forbidden. She may not have fully understood everything, but she clearly knew enough.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple But my understanding of the bible story from my 13 years or so was that the nature of sin was passed from adam and eve, and people wouldn't murder/steal, etc. if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the fruit. So indirectly it would be like we were being punished, right?
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"So indirectly it would be like we were being punished, right?"
Wrong.
If you don't ever sin, then you will earn heaven. Nobody will be sent to hell because Adam and Eve ate the fruit; people will be sent to hell for their own crimes.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Maybe you misunderstood what I said. A&E ate the fruit -> sin enters world, passes to all of humanity -> humanity now has the capability to do good and/or evil consciously. So what I was trying to point out was that we could not steal/kill/murder/etc. if A&E had not eaten the fruit, indirectly punishing us for what they did, by giving us the power to sin (assuming we did not have it, because A&E got that from the fruit.)
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"... humanity now has the capability to do good and/or evil consciously."
As I already pointed out, the Bible says that, before she ate the fruit, Eve indicated that it was wrong to do so. So your above statement is wrong because humanity always had the capability for good and evil.
Eve understood good and evil more fully after she ate the fruit.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"...by giving us the power to sin (assuming we did not have it, because A&E got that from the fruit.)"
If Adam and Eve could not sin before they ate the fruit, then how did they steal the fruit before they ate it? How could they disobey the Lord God before they ate the fruit?
Again, Eve's statements show that she knew it was wrong to eat the fruit before she ate the fruit.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"And infinite punishment for finite crime is not justice."
What "finite crime" are you talking about?
Crimes against an infinite God mean infinity in the lake of fire. Why would you think that it would be any other way?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Well any crime is finite, given that humans are finite beings. The point is that for the same reason it's illegal (and immoral) to torture me in your basement, it's wrong for God to burn me for all eternity. How is setting someone on fire justice for anything? Who deserves to be burned forever for anything?
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"Well any crime is finite,"
Really? So the family of a murder victim won't forever be without their loved one?
How long will the murder victim be dead? A finite amount of time?
"...it's wrong for God to burn me for all eternity."
Again, crimes against an infinite God mean infinity in the lake of fire. Why would you think that it would be any other way?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Well strictly no since they'll be gone eventually... as depressing as it may seem all humans do die eventually. But that's beside the point. "...crimes against an infinite God mean infinity in the lake of fire. Why would you think that it would be any other way?" Why does that seem right to you?
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"Well strictly no..."
So you are saying that they will get their loved one back. Exactly how long will the murder victim be dead?
"Why does that seem right to you?"
I take it that you are admitting that you have no answer so you must try to defect my question with a question.
If you have no answer, please be honest and say so.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple "So you are saying that they will get their loved one back. Exactly how long will the murder victim be dead?" That's not what I said. I said (or implied, rather) that they will not forever be without their loved one, because "they" won't exist forever. Anyway, that part DOESN'T matter. As I already said, I don't see the logic behind punishing someone for eternity for something finite (finite being with limits and bounds)
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"...I don't see the logic behind punishing someone for eternity for something finite..."
What is the 'finite crimes' to which you are referring?
You think that murder is a finite crime? At some point in the future, a murderer will stop being a murderer? Adolph Hitler is still a murderer.
If murder is a finite crime, exactly how long will the murder victim be dead?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Definition of Finite: Having limits or bounds. Humans have a limited amount of good or bad that we can do (a finite amount). After we die, for instance, we cannot do anymore good or bad. By that definition, every crime is finite.
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"By that definition, every crime is finite."
You are correct when you say that there are a limited amount of crimes that a human can do, but it is faulty logic to then conclude that, because the number of crimes is limited, then the crimes themselves are also limited.
You say that crimes are limited. If someone tells you a lie, then at what point will you never have been lied to?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple "You say that crimes are limited. If someone tells you a lie, then at what point will you never have been lied to?" By that logic, everything that has existed is infinite simply by existing
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"By that logic, everything that has existed is infinite simply by existing."
I think that you are somehow agreeing with me that, if someone lies to you, then there will never be a point at which you will never have been lied to.
Crimes have a metaphysical aspect to them which never go away.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Well, they go away when humanity goes away... these concepts are constructs of human minds
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"Well, they go away when humanity goes away..."
Who told you that there will be a point at which there will no longer be any humans? And why did you believe him?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Well I've heard it from multiple people, but I have reached that conclusion from looking at history and man's tendency to favor war over diplomacy, and the 99% of all the species on the earth ever have been extinct. and with all the uncertainty in the universe (meteors, nuclear weapons, floods from global warming, colliding galaxies, the sun dying, etc. Somehow I doubt humanity will survive for more than a billion years (if that)
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
So you are a fatalist. For you, there is no ultimate reason for life and nothing really matters.
Do you believe in the existence of good and evil?
Do you believe that there is a Creator?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Please don't label me. I'm not a fatalist, I simply think it's likely(I'm not much for philosophy anyway). The human race could develop hyperspace travel in a billion years to escape the sun's destruction, right? Good and evil to me are labels. good and evil are not "things." I do not think there is a god. The arguments I have heard for one's existence are pretty pitiful. Why do you think there's a creator?
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"Please don't label me."
I was just going by what you said.
"I'm not a fatalist,"
So you do believe in an ultimate meaning for life. What do you say it is?
"Why do you think there's a creator?"
Because I believe in science. After all, matter can't bring itself into existence.
"Good and evil to me are labels."
You don't believe that, for example, murder, is inherently evil?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple "So you do believe in an ultimate meaning for life." Wouldn't fatalism be the position that thinks that? I don't think our destinies (fates, whatever) are written in stone. "I believe in science." Believe in science? Not in the religious sense, right? I think trust is more accurate than faith when speaking of science. "matter can't bring itself into existence." Who said it did? I think murder is evil, but a psycho wouldn't... Morals are relative to the person and their effects.
acrazyone1 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"Wouldn't fatalism be the position that thinks that?"
No. You don't know what fatalism is?
"Believe in science? Not in the religious sense, right"
I'm not certain what you mean by that. I just made a simple statement: I believe in science.
"Who said it did?"
Stephen Hawking, among others. Lots of evolutionists and atheists have told me that they believe that matter could somehow create itself. I know, I know; they obviously don't believe in the laws of physics.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@acrazyone1
"I think murder is evil,"
Inherently evil?
"Morals are relative to the person..."
I think that you are saying that murder is not inherently evil. Are you saying that?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple Just payment for sins? Are you kidding me? To get to this so called "just payment for sins" Christianity, really Paul, had to invent the totally unjust concept of original sin based on the myth of Adam & Eve. And that is the very definition of a Con Game: Invent a problem, convince people they have that problem, and offer your scheme as the only solution to that problem. I am physically incapable of believing such bull shit!
Kailoa36 8 months ago
@Kailoa36
"...really, Paul, had to invent the totally unjust concept of original sin based on the myth of Adam & Eve."
Uh, Genesis predates Paul's birth by thousands of years. It obviously is not Paul's invention.
Your whole post ignores the basis of my post: Christianity is the only religion that offers a just means for the forgiveness of sins.
If you know of another way for a person to have their sins justly forgiven, please let me know.
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
@InternetDisciple Orginal sin is not a Jewish concept. Paul took the myth of Adam and Eve and reinterpreted it to support his invention of original sin. My post does not ignore the basis of your post. It denies it. The whole concept of sin, original or otherwise, is unjust and based on the myth of a tyrant god. I'm sure you'll put in your self-righteous last word. Enjoy it alone. This is my last word.
Kailoa36 8 months ago
@Kailoa36
Genesis was written thousands of years before Paul was born.Genesis says that Adam & Eve were the first ones to sin. But you say that Paul is the one that came up with it.
Why should anyone believe you and not Genesis?
"The whole concept of sin, original or otherwise, is unjust..."
Can you prove your assertion or is this merely something that you want to believe?
"This is my last word."
You're not going to defend your assertion? You want people to believe what you say by blind faith?
InternetDisciple 8 months ago
Cant we just agree slavery of any kind is wrong including sweat shops?
mephisto279 9 months ago
Honestly you need to look at evidence like a court case in a way that would have made great thinkers like Francis Bacon proud almost like a murder case. You can find the weapon and a motive but that's still not 100% definitive proof. The only way to definitively prove murderer guilty is to take the victim and the murderer and reproduce the circumstances, turn back time and observe it. That is impossible.
GKCanman 10 months ago
@GKCanman The best you can do is find multiple pieces of unique evidence that confirm the act. That is called concordance. The weapon and a motive might not be enough but if you found finger prints, a witness and a history of voilent acts then it is safe to assume the causes by looking at their effects. The less assumptions and, in general, the simpler it is the stronger the conclusion is.
GKCanman 10 months ago
@GKCanman Take the murder analogy and apply it to evolution you can see how it fits togeather. Does evolution have a "motive"? Yes, it's called survival. It has a "murder weapon" called natural selection and random mutation. It has a "violent history" called fossils. You can find "finger prints" in DNA evidence. You can find a "witness" in observing, for example, the different breeds of dogs originating. With all of these pieces of evidence is it fair to assume that evolution is "the murderer?"
GKCanman 10 months ago
@GKCanman
"You can find "finger prints" in DNA evidence."
What about DNA makes you feel that DNA is evidence for evolution?
"You can find a "witness" in observing, for example, the different breeds of dogs originating."
You think that dogs giving birth to dogs is evidence for evolution?
Do you have any evidence that dogs came from non-dogs, or is dogs giving birth to dogs the best evidence that you know of for evolution?
InternetDisciple 10 months ago
@InternetDisciple Sure, i can talk about different DNA evidence. For example you can traces of fusion from 24 pairs of chromasomes into 23 pairs. There's also the sheer similarities between the DNA. Not just the parts that code for more purposeful proteins but also the more useless segments that dont do much to help. You can also find vestibular organs such as muscles for tails when obviously there arent any.
GKCanman 9 months ago
@GKCanman
"For example you can traces of fusion 24 pairs of chromasomes into 23 pairs."
What about this convinces you that this is evidence for evolution?
"There's also the sheer similarities between the DNA."
That could be evidence for a common designer. But what convinces you that this is evidence for evolution?
"You can also find vestibular organs such as muscles for tails when obviously there aren't any."
Could you give an example of this 'vestibular' organs, please?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple As far as dog breeding being evidence, if you can walk 10 feet then it's reasonable to assume that you can walk a mile.You can breed dogs to be hairless, tailless, smarter, more social, with wierd bone structure, with webbed paws, with stomaches that can handle strange diets and you can even make some breeds that can't breed with others. For example you can't breed teacup breeds with great danes and only certain breeds can hybridize with wolves while others can't.
GKCanman 9 months ago
@GKCanman
"...if you can walk 10 feet then it's reasonable to assume that you can walk a mile."
I think that you are saying that you are basing your beliefs that dogs came from non-dogs on assumptions. Is that what you are saying?
"You can breed dogs to be hairless, tailless..."
How is that evidence that dogs supposedly came from non-dogs? So far, you've only gave examples of dogs bringing forth dogs. Is that really all that you've got?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple It's true that dogs give birth to dogs. However, was there always dogs? No. You can only find things that look somewhat like a dog but has some major differences in things like bone structure. Is it safe to assume that these ancient creatures could give rise to different breeds?
GKCanman 9 months ago
He is getting that from Ray comfort
Daly2893 10 months ago
@Daly2893
"He is getting that from Ray comfort"
Well... Comfort credits the Bible as his source material, so really he is getting that from the Bible.
InternetDisciple 10 months ago
@InternetDisciple Ok and what exactly make the bible authoritative? The bible has not met any burden of proof for its supernatural claims and is therefore heresy.
Daly2893 10 months ago
@Daly2893
Why is the Bible the authority? I would take you right back to the Ten Commandments, my friend.
Don't you think that there is a standard for right and wrong?
For example, is forced slavery inherently wrong? Or do you think that it is just an opinion that forced slavery is wrong?
InternetDisciple 10 months ago
@InternetDisciple
1) Do I think there is an inherent morality? No. Why should I?
2) Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is an inherent morality. Why is the bible representative of that morality?
3) Is forced slavery inherently wrong? Not according to the bible. There are 613 commandments in the bible and nowhere does it say slavery is wrong. But is does say that "they will become your property... You... can make them slaves for life" (Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV)
Morality is man made
Daly2893 10 months ago
@Daly2893
"No. Why should I?"
Just to be clear, are you saying that rape and murder are not inherently wrong?
"Why is the Bible representative of that morality?"
As I said, pointing to the Ten Commandments: examples - illicit lies are always wrong, murder is always wrong.
"Leviticus 25:44-46"
The Lord God did not condone slavery. However, He did regulate it. Let me know if you don't understand the difference.
InternetDisciple 10 months ago
@InternetDisciple
You InternetDisciple said "The Lord God did not condone slavery.". Can you back up that assertion? Where does he say in the bible that he does not support slavery and that it is wrong?
The fact is he doesn't! But here is some stuff he does say.
"they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life"
"since the slave is their property."
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear."
Daly2893 9 months ago
@Daly2893
"Can you back up that assertion?"
Well, I can't disprove a negative. However, I can point out the total lack of any verses where the Lord God condones slavery.
"they will become your property."
Again, the Lord God did not say that this pleased Him. Do you have a verse in which the Lord God condoned slavery? As I said, the Lord God did regulate slavery. Do you not understand the difference?
Also, just to be clear, are you saying that rape and murder are not inherently wrong?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple
I have already shown how the god of the bible condones slavery not just regulates it. You may have not seen the second part of my reply and I apologize again for having to split it.
Yes I am saying that rape and murder are not INHERENTLY wrong. We as a society get to decide what we want our society to be like. In general we all benefit from a society where there is no murder or rape. But the universe as a whole does not care if we murder or rape it makes no difference.
Daly2893 9 months ago
@Daly2893
"I have already shown how the god of the bible condones slavery..."
No you have not. You have posted some verses where the Lord God regulates slavery, but you've yet to post a verse where the Lord God condones slavery.
"Yes I am saying that rape and murder are not INHERENTLY wrong."
Scary. Hitler also believed that murder and rape were not inherently wrong. Do you tell your dates that you believe that rape is not inherently wrong?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple
"No you have not"... shown slavery is condoned by the bible.
Yes I have, in the second part of that previous message which you may have missed. If you have in fact seen that part but still disagree please post your refutation as a reply to that second part of the message.
Nothing is INHERENTLY wrong. Give me a reason to think anything is?
If murder is inherently wrong than your god is evil as he kills between 2.5million - 25million people in the bible. The devil kills 10
Daly2893 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple (Sorry not enough space in 1 reply)
Those quotes from (Leviticus 25:44-46) (Exodus 21:21) and (Ephesians 6:5) do not show god regulating slavery. The god of the bible clearly condones it.
How is "You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" regulating anything? It is saying that it is acceptable to own people! If you don't think it is acceptable to own people, then you don't get your morality from the bible.
Daly2893 9 months ago
@Daly2893
"How is "You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" regulating anything?"
My friend, telling someone how to do something is not the same thing as condoning it.
Either you can find a verse where the Lord God condones slavery (something like: 'I, the Lord God, say that slavery is a good thing and I want you to do a lot of it to honor Me.'), or you can't. (Hint: you can't. But good luck!)
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple
It is clear that no matter what I say you won't accept that the god of the bible condones slavery.
But you clearly are very opposed to slavery yourself. You don't just not condone it you adamantly oppose it as "inherently wrong". You claim that the bible is the source of inherent morality so since, in your opinion, slavery is inherently wrong we must find that in the bible. I am unaware of any part of the bible that says slavery is inherently wrong. Could you please inform me
Daly2893 9 months ago
@Daly2893
"It is clear that no matter what I say you won't accept that the god of the bible condones slavery."
I can't imagine that anyone would believe you since you continue to fail to post one verse in which the Lord God of the Bible condones slavery.
"...slavery is inherently wrong we must find that in the bible."
Ever read the Ten Commandments?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple
"Ever read the Ten Commandments?"
Which 10 commandments? The Catholic? The Hebrew? The Protestant? The 10 from Exodus 20? The 10 from Exodus 34? What about the other 603 commandments in the bible?
In NONE of these does it ever say that slavery is wrong!
Quote for me chapter and verse.
Daly2893 9 months ago
@Daly2893
"Quote for me chapter and verse."
Easy enough:
"Thou shalt not steal." Exodus 20:15 KJV
Let me know if you still don't understand the Lord God's stance against forced slavery.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple
Let me guess. You will argue that slavery is a theft of a persons freedom so "Thou shalt not steal" demonstrates that god is against slavery?
Well that is a pretty pathetic argument. If you can't understand why than I guess this conversation is over because you are way too close minded for me to even bother trying to convince you. I just hope you do some real objective searching for the truth the actual truth mate.
Daly2893 9 months ago
@Daly2893
"You will argue that slavery is a theft of a persons freedom..."
You're wrong again.
Theft is the taking of the one person's labor that earned it and making it the property of another person who did not earn it. Forced slavery is the taking of one person's labor and making it the property of another person that did not earn it.
Is this stuff not taught in school? Why is it that so many people are so ignorant? Public education, I guess.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple
dont knock public education if the first thing cut wasnt always the schools you could get a much more intelligent society. just sayin
mephisto279 9 months ago
@mephisto279
My friend, tell me, do you think that something brought everything into existence? Or do you think that nothing brought everything into existence?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple
I personally believe that the beggining of the universe as we know it today came from a great cosmic explosion. but since i was not there to witness it i can only formulate my oppinion based on the very hard work of those intellectuals who have put the time and effort into trying to understand our begginings. :) hope that helps
mephisto279 9 months ago
@mephisto279
"...but since i was not there to witness it..."
Just because I did not witness a building being built, that does not mean that I believe that nobody built it.
Again, do you think that something brought everything into existence? Or do you believe that nothing brought everything into existence?
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple YOU CANNOT compare a building to the universe, such a simple way to try and link two very disimilar events is basically a slap in the face of intellectual thinkers . and your question is flawed my good sir, the process that took place is one i nor those who think as i do can possibly prove 100 percent b/c we have no way to replicate it. but using what we know about the universe we can make a plausible theory.
mephisto279 9 months ago
"YOU CANNOT compare a building to the universe,"
I'm not. I am talking about the nature of existence.
Because the universe exists, it is known by those that understand basic science that something caused the universe to come into existence.
"and your question is flawed my good sir, the process that took place..."
It,s obvious that you didn't understand the basis of my question. I'm not talking about a process. I am talking about the nature of existence.
Let me know if you still don't understand.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple
i am terminating our conversation because your question is flawed and to provide an answer would make me feel less intelligent cmon its a loaded question and if you cant figure it out there is little to no hope for you and i told what i thought happened and it wasnt a old man playing on universe tycoon. im done with you leave me be
mephisto279 9 months ago
@mephisto279
"i am terminating our conversation because your question is flawed..."
You don't seem to be a logical person, my friend. Either something brought everything into existence or nothing brought everything into existence. There is no other option.
Stephen Hawking says that he believes that the universe created itself out of nothing. His understanding of basic physics is obviously flawed, but at least he knows that something created everything.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
@InternetDisciple
and a 2000 year old mistranslated story book does not provide solid evidence to how we or the universe came to be. sorry dude thats my answer to your pseudo question :) i hope that helps
mephisto279 9 months ago
@Daly2893
"You will argue that slavery is a theft of a persons freedom so "Thou shalt not steal" demonstrates that god is against slavery?
Well that is a pretty pathetic argument."
You asked me a question, and before you hear my answer, you say that it is a pathetic argument. My friend, you really should hear my argument before you cast judgment.
I'm just saying.
InternetDisciple 9 months ago
Lets do this the other way around.
1- have you ever told the truth?
2- Have you ever not stolen anything?
3- Have you ever looked at someone and not felt lust?
4- Have you ever loved someone instead of hating them?
So what does this tells us?
Sweddude 11 months ago
@Sweddude
So, you are trying to suggest that telling the truth make a liar into a non-liar?
If so, then by not murdering one person, that makes a murderer into a non-murderer?
In a court of law, the judge is not interested in the number of people that the criminal didn't murder. The judge is there to talk about the murder that did take place. 'Yeah, judge, I murder that guy, but look at all the people that I didn't murder'. I don't think that any judge will buy that. Do you?
InternetDisciple 11 months ago
@InternetDisciple All im saying is that should a man b judged by individual acts or should he be judged for his entire lifes actions if he is judged by god?
Is it allways wrong to lie? is it allways wrong to hate? jesus even told his own desciples to hate you know.
Sweddude 11 months ago
@Sweddude
"All im saying is that should a man b judged by individual acts or should he be judged for his entire lifes actions..."
Try that at a traffic stop: 'Officer, I only broke the speed limit this one time. You should judge me by the number of times that I have not sped.' I don't think that he would buy it.
And it is only illicit lies that are wrong. And it is okay to hate bad things. I hate it when I sin. I hate the killing of babies in the womb.
InternetDisciple 11 months ago
@InternetDisciple So your god is as simple as a human then? i understand.
Is it right to hate you father? your mother? your children? and your own life? jesus told the desciples that if they didnt do that then they couldnt be his desciples.
2 questions tough. Is your god omniscient (all knowing) and do we have free will?
Sweddude 11 months ago
@Sweddude
"Is it right to hate your father?"
In context, that is referring to an action, not a feeling. To hand someone a glass of water is a loving action. To call someone a bad name when you shouldn't is an action of hate.
Yes, the Lord God is all knowing. And, yes, we have free will.
"So your god is as simple as a human then?"
No.
InternetDisciple 11 months ago
@InternetDisciple So your god knew before he created everything who would sin? what they would do? he knew that adam and eve would eat that forbiden fruit? He knew that lucifer would dissobey him? he knew he would have to drown the world and save a drunkard and his family? He already knew before he created anything exactly the fate of every single human that eves has existed or ever will exist?
If he did indeed know all that then arent we just puppets in a puppetshow?
Sweddude 11 months ago
@Sweddude
"So your god knew before he created everything who would sin?"
Yes.
"If he did indeed know all that then aren't we just puppets in a puppetshow?"
No. Preknowledge does not equate to predestination. Just because I saw the game live and then later watched a recording of it with my friend, my preknowledge of the game's outcome does not mean that I predestinated the outcome of the game.
InternetDisciple 11 months ago