It is quite sad and somewhat embarassing to me to think that the so called God of the universe appears to not know how to interact with his creation of man in whom he made after his own likeness... WOW... how can this be?
In Genesis, God says : it is not good for man to be alone...so he makes a woman. What that says to me is this... that Adam, before his fall, at his best, in the midst of God's own presence, God saw him as being ALONE .This give rise to the question; If God from the start saw man as being alone within his own presence before he sinned. How then can man , a lesser being, made after God's likeness think any different from his creator today after sin? Its not man's fault that he thinks he's alone
I agree with many of your arguments and have some vids anyone who liked this might like. "The Evil in Nature Parts 1-4" in my channel are about the suffering in the world and how these things should reflect badly on God if he exists. Anyway, nice vid. Keep up the good work!
Neither atheist, nor theist, nor Christian, nor agnostic, nor satanist, nor of any so-called "modern faith". Thus said..What about the 10 ancient moral laws as a decider; not of what's "good", but what defines corruption? I could care less about the good/bad issues. They are all subjective. Mankind always comes out on top in his own mind -always "good".
Better challenge: Prove to me that there isn't some sordid entity masquerading as a divine agent. Life is too screwed up to have "evolved".
As far as the killing of Children goes....I dunno. I know the message of the Cross was a message of peace. In the OT the cultures of the land may have been so wicked that even the children were tainted. Israel was told to wipe everything out and to not keep a thing from these cultures. They disobeyed. Because of this, Israel was constantly being conquered by foreign nations. Eventually, they were wiped out...the land anyway, and its people scattered.
As far as Paul goes. He said that the body returns to the ground and our spirit goes to God. He never said the God does not raise the dead. You have Valley of Dry Bones. 2 Kings 13:21 where a dead man was brought to life when coming into contact with Elisha's bones. Lazarus was raised from the dead. Jesus brought a little girl back from death and raised from the dead Himself. So, how then do you say that God does not raise the dead?
Been doing some reading. Sometimes I tend to put my foot in my mouth. Your right. I was reading something about a guy who studied about 1500 cases that seem to show some sort of mental state even when the brain shows zero activity in a near death experience. However, what happens after as far as Heaven or Hell goes science does not contribute an info. If it did we would not be having this conversation.
As far as your other question. What does science have to say about afterlife? But in the area of resurrection goes, a body needs certain things for life. Give it these things and it lives. Or are you saying that a God who created the universe can not resuscitate a dead body? Be more specific.
A lot imo. For starters it has a lot to say about the concept of the immaterial immortal soul, too much to write here but if you are interested watch my video "watch?v=NrbFPSznUDA"
"Or are you saying that a God who created the universe can not resuscitate a dead body?"
I am saying He doesn't. As does Paul (I think it is in his letter to the Galatians) who recognised that our bodies get destroyed, the atoms get ...
@GodsSpartan611 You assume that God is real, which there is no evidence of and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. So, prove a supernatural being exists and that it created everything therefore has the power to resurrect the dead, and then we can talk about what it could and couldn't do. If you have some evidence I would love to see it, we could change the entire world and write our names in the history books forever (well until we get wiped out or evolve into something that isn't human).
Also, consider that God's covenant had not yet been given to other nations. Any qualities, rewards, or benefits could not be accessed if you were not Jewish at this time.
But let's assume that God is "all good" what actions would God take against an evil people in order to uphold that goodness? If God is all knowing then He would know the hearts of these firstborn. Yes "firstborn" not infants. The hearts of these Egyptian firstborn would be hearts after other gods...not the one true God.
Your issue with assuming the God is "all good" is that you are leaning on your own understand of said good. God is show to be good in scripture but is also shown to have possess anger. Anger by some would assume the absence good. But by what definition? You attempt to put God in a box of your own understanding. He needs to be a God that fits your understanding and agrees to your agendas....
What you say is "nature" I say is perversion of original intent of a loving God. Of course, Im wondering where your objections are. Is it the concept of God, Christians, or the Bible itself? What are your objections?
"Is it the concept of God, Christians, or the Bible itself? What are your objections?"
The concept of God and scripture, not to mention the incompatibility of the two. Christians themselves are largely irrelevant. I have read at some length on how the bible was most likely composed, on the archaeological historicity, on the claims it makes in light of modern science and on other mesopotamian/near eastern religions and it all doesn't hang together at all....
...for example, In the Sumerian story of Enki and Ninhursag, one of the godesses Ninhursag creates to heal Enki's body is called Ninti. In Sumerian Ninti means both 'lady of the rib' and 'lady of life', it is a pun and as such we can appreciate the choice. Translate a modification of the story into hebrew and the pun is lost and the bizarre idea that Eve (which in hebrew means something to do with life) is created from Adam's rib makes no sense.
...for example, In the Sumerian story of Enki and Ninhursag, one of the godesses Ninhursag creates to heal Enki's body is called Ninti. In Sumerian Ninti means both 'lady of the rib' and 'lady of life', it is a pun and as such we can appreciate the choice. Translate a modification of the story into hebrew and the pun is lost and the bizarre idea that Eve (which in hebrew means something to do with life) is created from Adam's rib makes no sense.
Back to the Bible. The Bible says that He hangs the stars in the sky. (No pinholes) also says they can not be counted even before science came to that conclusion. It tells us the earth is a sphere and that it revolves around the sun. People used to be hanged or beheaded for saying such "nonsense".
I really don't want to get involved in this 'science in the bible' thing. For starters, the bible mentions so many different things that any position can be described as 'scientific' (and ones which contradict we are supposed to read metaphorically) and yet the outdated positions you mention were, in their day, backed up by biblical passages themselves!
But this is a question that needs answered. Everything in the universe from the sun, moon, stars, and black holes to, the origins of human life rest on the beginnings of the universe as the universe is the canvas for it all.
Again, this is a difficult one because 'always' is only what we think of it if we assume an external temporal realm, something we have no knowledge of either way. In any event, howdoes adding sentience as a characteristic in any way simplify an eternal 'first cause' ove a non-sentient one? It surely does the opposite.
"But this is a question that needs answered."
Except that doesn't mean we have an answer for it.
Again, this is a difficult one because 'always' is only what we think of it if we assume an external temporal realm, something we have no knowledge of either way. In any event, howdoes adding sentience as a characteristic in any way simplify an eternal 'first cause' ove a non-sentient one? It surely does the opposite.
"But this is a question that needs answered."
Except that doesn't mean we have an answer for it.
Speaking scientifically (leaving out God for the time being) I would say that the ideas you threw out while interesting are a bit complex. The simplest solution is the best solution. They don't offer much in measurements and numbers. The problem with the question of the universe is that we must eventually grasp the concept of infinity. Something always had to be there in order for something to come from it. This goes for anything from your aliens, the these spacial membranes...
as far as the universe goes. You are the artist here...im asking for you to paint me an image of the universe before it was. Speculate if you must. I wont debate evolution because I actually think its a sound theory. But I don't know enough to get paid for my opinion so.... ;)
".im asking for you to paint me an image of the universe before it was"
That is a strange way of putting it - a bit like asking me to tell you what my mother looked like before she was conceived!
Personally it seems there are a great many models on the go, in science and beyond, for what constitutes what is now sometimes called the metaverse and i have no special affiliation to any of them. One of the interesting ones is that the universe is huge....
...and i mean really huge, and in a state of eternal inflation. Regions, such as our own, form when the inflaton field collapses in a region to form a bubble of space expanding at a more sedate pace. Then there is the membrane theory, another mathematically predicted idea, which suggests that our universe may be a higher dimensional brane and that the big bang event is the result of a collision with another such brane (hard to picture but these things are derived and tested ....
...and i mean really huge, and in a state of eternal inflation. Regions, such as our own, form when the inflaton field collapses in a region to form a bubble of space expanding at a more sedate pace. Then there is the membrane theory, another mathematically predicted idea, which suggests that our universe may be a higher dimensional brane and that the big bang event is the result of a collision with another such brane (hard to picture but these things are derived and tested ....
...entirely in the realm of maths where the limits of our perception is not an obstacle). Another, and one of my favourites, is nick bostroms simulation hypothesis. Nick hypothesises that if universes exist with sentient creatures with sufficiently high technology, they are likely to try and simulate universes themselves and populate those universes with simulated sentient intelligences. Now here is the interesting bit: undoubtedly any such technologically.....
...entirely in the realm of maths where the limits of our perception is not an obstacle). Another, and one of my favourites, is nick bostroms simulation hypothesis. Nick hypothesises that if universes exist with sentient creatures with sufficiently high technology, they are likely to try and simulate universes themselves and populate those universes with simulated sentient intelligences. Now here is the interesting bit: undoubtedly any such technologically.....
...advanced species would run such a simulation more than once (why on earth would you only do it once, after all?) and so his conclusion is that the number of simulated universes with sentient life should exceed the number of real universes with sentient life ergo it is more likely than not that we live in a simulated rather than a real universe! Of course the theological implications are immense: it means we could have a sentient creator, a god-like figure who.....
...advanced species would run such a simulation more than once (why on earth would you only do it once, after all?) and so his conclusion is that the number of simulated universes with sentient life should exceed the number of real universes with sentient life ergo it is more likely than not that we live in a simulated rather than a real universe! Of course the theological implications are immense: it means we could have a sentient creator, a god-like figure who.....
...not only created our universe but holds our fate in its hands, but that rather than being omniscient, omnipotent etc etc, in its own realm the creator of our universe need to be no grander than we ourselves are, just with access to far superior technology.
All interesting stuff, but speculative mathematics aside not a shred of evidence on which to favour one above the other. The same is true if you compare traditional deism. The problem I have with your beliefs it that, unlike...
...not only created our universe but holds our fate in its hands, but that rather than being omniscient, omnipotent etc etc, in its own realm the creator of our universe need to be no grander than we ourselves are, just with access to far superior technology.
All interesting stuff, but speculative mathematics aside not a shred of evidence on which to favour one above the other. The same is true if you compare traditional deism. The problem I have with your beliefs it that, unlike...
...not only created our universe but holds our fate in its hands, but that rather than being omniscient, omnipotent etc etc, in its own realm the creator of our universe need to be no grander than we ourselves are, just with access to far superior technology.
All interesting stuff, but speculative mathematics aside not a shred of evidence on which to favour one above the other. The same is true if you compare traditional deism. The problem I have with your beliefs it that, unlike...
...these other ideas, what you have faith in has lots of contradictory myths and legends tacked on that sound all too much like ancient human story-telling and arrogantly overplay the importance of the role of one intelligent ape, on one small planet, in one solar system, one of 100 billion in one galaxy, itself but one of 200 billion galaxies in the observable portion of the universe alone. It isn't that you god concept is too big, it is that in application .....
...such as his purported interest in whether I am masturbaing, embarrassingly parochial - entirely in tune with what someone may have understood of the world thousands of years ago, believing the stars were but pinholes in the firmament, but so obviously the product of minds and men given what we have learned since.
...such as his purported interest in whether I am masturbaing, embarrassingly parochial - entirely in tune with what someone may have understood of the world thousands of years ago, believing the stars were but pinholes in the firmament, but so obviously the product of minds and men given what we have learned since.
And what makes living a sinless life so mundane. You can still enjoy art, music, culture, food, people's company. What makes you happy? A calm sunset at the beach, driving in the city. There are so many more aspects to this life than just gratifying your flesh. Outward living is pleasing to many. Why would you degrade it so?
This means we need Christ, but not as an escape or a crutch. Christ is a restoration to what we ought to be.
Im glad that I am having this conversation. You actually helped me see something important. God had to look away from Jesus when he was on the cross. This is because Christ took on the sin of the world. God won't look upon sin. So why would I? I should imitate my God! To do so I need only gaze upon Him. Who cares what is wrong. You need not know it.
Maybe knowing wrong is the problem. The point of the relationship with Christ is to look to Him in all you do. If you gaze upon perfection, you begin to imitate it. If you gaze upon sin, you imitate sin. So why gaze upon it. Man was told what not to do. It was only one thing! Just one! The first, first commandment. Now we need ten! Read the ten commandments...is it really that hard? No, but in a way, you can't keep them because to even hate is like murder.
What's wrong with speculating on what the universe was like before it began to spin and grow? What's wrong with answering this question. Also...you say you cannot rule out God, so how are you atheist? How can you explain this world we live in? How are we here?
"What's wrong with speculating on what the universe was like before it began to spin and grow?"
Nothing, but if you assert that the start of the universe was the start of time then there is no 'before' to speculate about.
".you say you cannot rule out God, so how are you atheist?"
Many theists admit they cannot rule out being wrong and there being no god. For myself, for gods such as the specific one you believe in i think His existence is about as likely as Gandalfs.....
....but when it comes to the ultimate origin of the universe, as we know so little it would be foolish to start ruling out entire conceptual areas when we know so little and when the gamut of possible entities that would constitute a 'god' is so wide.
"How can you explain this world we live in? How are we here?"
I don't want to be awkward but this is still too vague. What do you want me to comment on, the universe, the earth, abiogenesis, evolutionary progression?
Adam and Eve were given a choice. "You may eat of any tree in the garden." He gave them freedom. But then He told them to not eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If they did, they would die. They were informed of the consequences of their actions.
What it actually says is "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" which hardly sounds like a recantation of immortality (which was not claimed prior to this) but an immediate sanction.
"They were informed of the consequences of their actions."
They were, but they were never told their actions were wrong nor did they know what 'wrong' meant (they were innocent). Nor would they know that death was a bad thing if they had no instincts.
Sin is not the reason for diversity. Unless by diverse you are to claim that "wonderful" diversity is engaging in sexual acts or murder. I love various cultures around the world. Other languages are beautiful. I actually love arabic, and russian.
"Sin is not the reason for diversity. Unless by diverse you are to claim that "wonderful" diversity is engaging in sexual acts or murder."
Christianity lays claim to so much of what we do as being sinful and yet if you sucked out every single such thing the world would be a most tedious place. Apparently, i am told, nothing we do is good enough for your God
You would presume nonsense that God placed them in the position, but I will answer by saying, "relationship." We can choose to obey and choose to disobey. Without that choice, there is no free will, thus there is no relationship.
But there's was an uninformed choice, God may as well have given a newborn baby a choice - at least a newborn has its instincts, according to you Adam and Eve didn't even have that!!!
Secondly, what kind a relationship is it when the choice is 'obey me or suffer torment and torture'? I will tell you: it is called an abusive relationship.
What I am saying is that God did not put the instincts in us you are claiming He did. I try to control my thoughts but when that fails, I control my actions.
Also, I would like you to tell me:
1st) According to you, how are you able to say that there is no God?
2nd) give me the picture of the Universe before time was time. What did it look like?
"What I am saying is that God did not put the instincts in us you are claiming He did."
So our instincts are the result of the fall then?
Now I am really confused. So Adam and Eve were not given the knowledge of good and evil, were devoid of instncts and yet were expected to know how to behave!!! Can you not see my friend how, given your reading of things, they were doomed from the start?
1) If you are talking about an amorphous god-concept stripped of the mythology then I would answer to you that I cannot say for certain no such entity exists, all I can say is that we have no evidence for such a being and positing one doesn't make things any clearer. However, your faith involves some concepts that jar with our experience, such as omnibenevolence, and a huge series of tall tales many of which are evidentially wrong and/or impossible.
2) How can I give you an atemporal and aspacial picture?
"before time was time"
This is a meaningless statement. There is no 'before' the start of time because 'before' is a temporal term - you are trying to chronologically order events without a temporal framework. Ofc we could both hypothesise a pre-existant temporal realm but that doesn't help either of our worldviews in terms of an ultimate answer.
Who says he put those genes there? What if these genes are a result of sin? Or what if our perfection was tainted and these genes devolved in a way? Again, im claiming our present nature is the result of the fall.
So you are saying that our dna altered as a result of sin? You are asserting that sin itself is the reason for much of the wonderful diversity of human behaviour? Can I ask you if you have anything to actually base that claim on?
"A good man can commit the evilest of deeds. An evil man is capable of saving a life. Its a choice. We choose."
Agreed. i never said we were genetically pre-ordained (though chrisdtians believe god imbues us with a soul so presumably He decides who get sthe evil souls?), what i said is that we are predisposed. Why would God create genes to predispose us to things he is then going to punish us for as sinful? That doesn't make any sense.
I would be delighted to answer your question, of course, but it is so wide in scope I really need you to be a bit more specific. Which part of 'how we got here' do you have a problem with? Let me know and i will tell you what i believe and where i see the limits of our present knowedge is at.
There were two trees in the garden. Knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. Imagine evil men living forever....Hitler? Stalin? That would be bad.
As far as animals go....they are animals. They no not of right and wrong, just instinct. We can judge right from wrong. I have aggressive thoughts as well. Evil thoughts I will admit to. Do I act on them? No. An animal is subject to its breeding and environment.
"There were two trees in the garden. Knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. Imagine evil men living forever....Hitler? Stalin? That would be bad."
Fine, but that doesn't answer my question. there is a clear reference in that chapter to the possibility of man gaining immortality but no reference to him losing it, so on what basis are you asserting that man possessed immortality to begin with?
This is massively untrue. you need to look up the experiements and observations of other higher primates (than ourselves) and see the many observed and catalogued instances of decision-making based on empathy, not simply on instinct (can i suggest Frans de waals book 'the age of empathy')
....but perhaps you can explain to me why God would give us such an overwhelming sex drive if He so seriously disapproves of us expressing it? If I was to selectively breed ultra-aggressive dogs would it then be fair of me to punish those dogs for being aggressive? I think not.
the claim being made is that God made Adam and Eve innocent, unknowing of good and evil and then punished them for not following orders.....
...even though God knew that innocence of good and evil would have precluded them from knowing what was good ie doing what God tells you to do. But no, apparently this is not Gods fault, even though he knew in advance he was placing them in a position whereby they were bound to fail. nope, it is not Gods fault, apparently it is yours and mine all these years later.
Utter and absolute nonsense, i can think of no other way to describe it.
Further, you degrade yourself by speaking profanities sir. But to answer the other question, why would babies be dropped in a perfect/sinless world? There would be no death, no sickness. We handed this world over to that. Its that simple.
"Further, you degrade yourself by speaking profanities sir."
I have degraded myself a lot further than that before, i can assure you :)
"There would be no death, no sickness."
You have to recall that for me I am having to entirely suspend my worldview even to have this conversation. The idea that death only exists because of mans 'sin' when life existed on this planet for several billion years before our arrival is ludicrous, but from your perspective another poser......
....upon reading the second genesis account it appears that God is somewhat concerned that Adam has become like the gods after eating from the treee of the knowledge of good and evil and in 3:22 is concerned that if he now eats from the tree of life he will also gain immortality. So the question is, why would God be concerned about man gaining immortality (like the gods) if he already had immortality?
Really? You think God gave us the thoughts of hatred and lusts? You think those were the ideas planted in our heads by God? Sorry, but your wrong. The Bible tells us, "what ever is pure, what ever is holy...." those are what we are supposed to think of. Our mind is a dark place because of sin. Again, by our choice. Our own freewill.
"You think God gave us the thoughts of hatred and lusts?"
No, I am an atheist, just trying to make sense of your position.
I wasn't suggesting your god 'planted the thoughts' but rather that these are normal parts of the human condition. Nearly every mammal lusts - most are preoccupied by sex - so why would you expect us to be any different? Is a bonobo's mind a dark place because of bonobo 'sin' or is this just silly talk? Bonobos think about sex because the bonobo that .....
...mates the most has the most offspring, so most young bonobos are descended from bonobos that thought a lot about sex, so they inherit the predisposition. Humans are no different, we are preoccupied by sex because that is an inheritable trait and a valuable one in the 'reproduction game'.
A question. You talk of God not planting these things in our thoughts, so are you aware that we have already isolated genetic alleles that predispose people to aggression and dishonesty?
Plus, your asking the wrong questions. I would instead challenge Christians by asking this. "Where were you when the tsunami hit? Where were you when the children died? If you have this divine power in you....why do you not use it?" You will never disprove God....you can dispel the rumors that there are Christians living out what is presented in the Bible. So I ask....Christians! Why are we dropping the ball?
Do not put words in my mouth, I never said that they deserve that fate. There is an age where right and wrong is not understand. Babies drowning is the result of the fallen state of this world. Which you (understanding good and evil) are responsible for. And so am I.
So if the world wasn't in a fallen state how would that stop babies drowning? If a baby fell into the water would it just bounce out again, or something?
Your whole argument is silly in the extreme and amounts to: God lets the babies drown because we masturbate (on the urge He has given us) and that is OUR fault.
Because of my wrongs, the unfortunate happens. Its a sickening thing to me and I hate it. But....there is a way out. You speak of storms, I was in the midst of one that was calmed by a man of God. You speak of illness, but I have seen the terminally ill become healed through prayer and fasting
So you are saying that the babies deserged to die in the tsunami and that God is doing the right thing to allow them to drown...... but that a preacher may have changed Gods mind if he had made the right prayer?
Have you ever had any hatred towards any man? Ever think of a woman in a way you shouldn't? This is sin. Sin separates us and this world from God. My sin is the cause of suffering in this world. I cannot claim perfection, no man can. Its really simple to grasp. Im not speaking in riddles.
Your God is supposed to be omniscient and yet he would have to be a crazy ignoramus for what you assert to be true. Think about it: you are saying that He has given us certain innate characteristics, fundamental to what makes us human and then punished the entire planet when we act on them.
I agree, you are not talking riddles, you are talking s**t!
Your God is supposed to be omniscient and yet he would have to be a crazy ignoramus for what you assert to be true. Think about it: you are saying that He has given us certain innate characteristics, fundamental to what makes us human and then punished the entire planet when we act on them.
I agree, you are not talking riddles, you are talking s**t!
I think I have made it obvious...but I will rephrase. God made creation and man. God gave dominion over creation to man. Man gave everything over to Satan. Because of this, we see death, disasters, famine. No one willed the tsunami, but because of our choice, these things happen.
"God gave dominion over creation to man. Man gave everything over to Satan."
Which 'man' is this exactly? Are you to be held accountable for my misdeeds? Should you go to prison if my great great grandfather got involved in a fight 80 years ago?
Personally i don't recall handing anything over to satan and i doubt the children and babies who dies in that tsunami in 2005 did either.
This is perhaps difficult for many who wish to paint God to be either imperfect or even not real. But fact is, man gave this world over to evil. The Devil is the prince of this world...we gave that to him. The fault of all of these disasters, birth defects, illness, and death, rests on our shoulders.
Or man did this to himself. Everything was created perfect. Then, God gave all of creation to man to look after. Then man handed this world over to the devil. None of this is God's will....its man's.
if you have any questions, or think of any holes in my answers, definitely send me a message, i like to talk about these types of things because if we do not get a bunch of minds together to think and "debate" then we will be stuck in the same spot with no progress towards the ultimate goal...that goal being the real truth. I am glad you are not one of those atheists who are close minded like a lot of theists to the possibilities of new ideas :)
and btw even though i am a theist, i do not deny the fact that there may not be a god, it would be silly to ultimately decide for 100% on something there is no evidence to prove or disprove it...so i hope i was able to give you some insight on this one persons own opinion, i may be a theist, but my views on the world are far different from most theists....most would condemn me to hell for my beliefs, but i smile at the ignorant, for it is not their fault they do not understand.
cont....therefore showing benevolence through the power of love. what i view as horrible and unnatural could just be normal for someone else. it helps us to throw free our closed minds and open them up to a whole new world of possibilities, for if we view something that used to be out of the norm as now part of the norm it may help from persecution...for in the past disfigured people were branded freaks are now labled as the rest of us...people...
and to answer your second question i would have to say that natural disasters and babies being born with disfigurements could possibly be a test to the "faithful " that no matter what happens god has your back, sure your baby may be horribly disfigured, but you are still going to love it with all your heart showing it and other people that even though to them it may look like a freak, to someone else it is a beautiful person and should not be judged based on appearances...cont
With respect, the disfigured and severely handicapped baby may be a 'test' for the parents faith - the argument could work from that perspective, but it utterly ignores the elephant in the room. The baby is a human being in its own right: what about its chance of life?
Secondly, a God who allows (or causes) your baby to be born with the worst imaginable abnormalitiesis not reeally the kind of thing i would particularly want 'watching my back'.
@noelplum99 understandable, however from the people i have met who are disfigured or handicapped, they do not see it as a crutch or as a disability, rather a difference. every person i know with a handicap or disability to my surprise has a wonderful outlook on life that makes me smile...and they seem to genuinely enjoy their life. i actually admire people like that because it seems like they have a stronger bravado, whereas a lot of people take things to heart way too much....cont
I am not talking about someone with half a leg missing but people born with half their internal organs missing or no skin covering their bodies. Babies who live for a few hours in total agony before passing away.
@noelplum99 ok well that i have absolutely no explanation for, i am just as curious as you are as to how this could be allowed to happen...either way it is fucked up and wrong for there is nothing an unborn child has done to deserve that
@noelplum99 cont....so even though their bodies may be more frail their spirit (and i dont mean soul) is stronger than most "normal" people i know. so maybe that could be considered an even trade?
@noelplum99 and yes i suppose i should have worded the "watching my back" thing a little different...maybe i should have said something like, if your child is happy, and you make them happy, isnt that all that matters? i mean i know people who were born "normal" and had parents that ignored them a lot and it scarred them, where as most "abnormal" people i know had a closer upbringing seeing as how their parents were more concerned for them, so it built a more solid relationship.
Hello I am a theist not a christian and to answer your first question i would have to say that i have no grounds to say that god is good, but rather that god is just because if you do something good you are rewarded with the feeling of fulfillment and satisfaction whereas if you do something bad you are filled with remorse and regret, so based on the feelings of majority of people out there i would have to say god is a just being, and justice is a good thing, technically making him good...
"because if you do something good you are rewarded with the feeling of fulfillment and satisfaction"
I understand your argument but, in the context of this video, how do you know what acts constitute 'something good'? Once you assert that life is really too complex for us to understand the complexities and that apparently bad acts could actually be benevolent for hidden reasons then the reverse becomes equally true. It seems to me in the replies you have made to me here you....
...have perpetuated the very thing i am railing against in this video, specifically taking all God's benevolent-looking acts at face value and asserting that all God's malevolent-looking acts are actually benevolent for reasons totally beyond our ken.
@noelplum99 well you are instilled with values given to you by your parents or upbringers from a young age to teach you right from wrong, its not god its not the bible, its people...but when i do good things i dont think of my mother or father, i think of how it makes me feel good, so in reality i suppose we all interpret through our own different experiences of what is good or bad, for instance if someone punches me in the face it is unpleasant so i dont have the urge to do it to anyone else.
I don't disagree with the basic premise you are making with regard to how we innately decipher right from wrong but then that was never really at question here. i mean to say, when you see over two hundred thousand people swept away by a tsunami in the indian ocean do you innately feel what a good thing that is? Of course not and so to maintain a position of Gods omnibenevolence you have to totally suspend both your intuition and your common sense.
@noelplum99 oh well i do not believe god is omnibenevolent, or omnitiant or omnipotent, he may see all posibilites of your life, but which one you choose is up to you, for if i blew my head off right now, he technically should have seen that coming which would defeat the whole free will thing, and i do believe some things are out of his control....so i dont know what i would technically be described as cause i side with some of both atheists and theists points lol
@noelplum99 and i agree with this statement "to maintain a position of Gods omnibenevolence you have to totally suspend both your intuition and your common sense" that is why i like to question things as well cause it doesnt all add up from either side, but who says that the tsunami is from god? and im not gonna say its from satan cause that makes me sound dumb lol but the earth has its own laws of nature, and things do happen...it is very tragic and i question why to god a lot with no answer
@noelplum99 " and that apparently bad acts could actually be benevolent for hidden reasons then the reverse becomes equally true"
I do not believe bad things happen for a good reason, or good things happen for a bad reason. i believe good/bad things happen because its all part of the karmic wheel that perpetuates the balance of the world, for if there was no bad then there could be no good and vice verse, but who is to say someone born without the use of their legs, sight, etc.....cont
@noelplum99 cont.....are really bad things? they are perceived as bad to people who are classified as normal. so let me ask you this, why is it bad, is it because its different than average? if so then if "normal" civilization was without the use of their legs and someone was born with the use of their legs, would it then be considered bad that they could walk? either way it just perpetuates that difference is a bad thing. either way people are flawed in their own ways, some physical some mental
@zaph1987 You are very much on the right track. It is our human judgments of good and evil that produce these unfortunate appearances, which are therefore illusory in nature. Of course it follows that God cannot be faulted for not "fixing" an illusion.
PS: my assumption is that you are the same guy as the guy i banned. That is fine, as long as you debate and don't just throw shit around again. If you do i will block you again
"What don't you understand about ONE event, many stories about ONE event?"
I understand what that means but it doesn't make any sense. you have simply reiterated the same statement and not explained to me how the two giant ants and the rainbow serpent fit in with the genesis narratives. I suppose Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are two stories about the same event? they are about as fucking similar!
"If there is no objective right and wrong then morality does not exist and only personal preference, some might call it hedonism!"
My cat isn't hedonistic so presumably God has prescribed a moral code for her also?
Anyway, look, enjoyable as this is I simply don't have the time to keep going with the dozen or so strands we have broken into here (you may well be in the same boat). I just wanted to say someone has flagged your comments as 'spam' and it isn't me!
but lets pretend that the dna code came about by blind an unintelligent forces, * * Cough Cough.
This would be the result of working on the physical, there would be no evolution of moral traits, if you enjoy fishing then there is no gene for the love of fishing that is going to get passed on, Talking about non physical traits evolving is absurd.
"if you enjoy fishing then there is no gene for the love of fishing"
Correct to a point. It is highly unlikely there would be a specific allele whose only function was to elicit a predisposition for fishing BUT a specific allele could switch on in a specific circumstance during development and be incorporated in some such function. After all, we can breed dogs with very very specific character traits and very specific personalities so you have no grounds to ridicule this.
...I mean you may as well assert that it is absurd to suggest that pointers are genetically more predisposed towards pointing than bassett hounds, or that golden retrievers are genetically more predisposed towards friendly companionship than pitbulls.
i think some people get a bit carried away with regard to talking about 'a gene for x', however, which is why i assert that a predisposition towards empathetic sympathy is a broad brush and that accounts for the 'misfirings'...
...such as the empathy and pain i felt for the frog i trod on some 16 years ago - rationally i know that frogs do not suffer or bemoan their fate the same way i do but my empathetic sense still incorrectly places me in the twisted and crushed body of that frog and it still makes me wince today.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on what morality is and its definition, I don't want to distract you from other things, thanks for the cordial debate.
HEY NoelPlum. Change your name to PruneFace. hahahahaa Did you just get out of bed? Or is that how you usually wear your hair? Do us a favor and comb that shit, put on a decent shirt so that you at least LOOK intelligent. Stop the ranting and raving like a front porch fundie evangelist. Makes you look like an idiot. OH you ARE? I thought so. hahahahahaha
I bet your mom is ashamed of you isn't she? C'mon, tell the truth. Your mom said you're an idiot too didn't she? Listen to mom asshole.
@noelplum99 "You have something sensible to say then say it. One more post like that and i will block you." Of course you will. I well expect so from a little loudmouthed chickenshit. It's all you've got. You're one powerful tool. You must never have been in the military because that's exactly what they would say to you and worse. AND that WAS sensible. Somebody should tell you what a fucking idiot you make of yourself on screen. You should be thanking me but no you will block me.
@WildCatsKitten1 So actually atheists believe in creation and have their own myth. They just can't get away from God can they? It baffles them that they are like the American Indians who all believed in creation. They look down at those primitive people and say, "They didn't understand and needed an explanation so they just made on up." HAR HAR HAR HAR All the while the evotards needed an explanation so THEY MADE ONE UP. HAR HAR HAR
For God to be what I call "God", he would have to be good, or Good is God, Good is a mind, is all powerful, the Creator, so what ever He does would ultimately be good. And if He allows evil to happen to us, He is still good. This view puts God as infinitely more important then humans, and the source of human importance. I'm sure this will offend a lot of you. I don't believe there is "importance" in an atheistic view, its delusion. No reason to believe we matter at all. Sorry.
How exactly would you know what an omnibenevolent being would be as well?
You are asking from the same position we are, which means you have no answer. So basically this is the dumbest fuckin argument I've ever heard against God.
It shares the same stupidity as when an atheist trys to act like he knows HOW AN OMNISCIENT BEING SHOULD ACT....
Why are you so fuckin stupid? get yourself a philosophy book and learn the good arguments.
The simple fact is, that the majority of HUMANS on this Earth are mentally deranged, believing and participate in the biggest of lies. Not one Christian nor religious zealot can tell you why their GOD has NEVER healed an amputee. Again, it is part of the delusion to believe that there's always something better on the other-side. The very fact that a majority of Christians use the King James version of the Bible, is testament that a Pedophile King, can change the mind of the masses for profit.
Here is your answer, tho' you may not accept it. The nature of God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus, who said "My Kingdom is not of this world:" and "the Kingdom of Heaven is within YOU." In God's kingdom there is no death, illness, hunger, or sin. This Kingdom must be realized within oneself in order for it to manifest in the outer picture. Jesus did this, he knew that only God is Real, that all negative appearances have no basis in Reality, which is eternal perfection.
(cont)so what I'm saying is that so many non-believers use their unhappiness or that of others as "proof of no God", which is rediculous. What could God (any possible God) owe to us??
The truth is that He gave us LIFE (amazing!!!), and He's given us the ability to decide how we'll use that life (benevolent!!!).
(cont)world view, our lives and this planet make no sense at all. From a spiritual world view, what goes on here on Earth starts to make a lot of sense.
....but note this point as well...
You've completely missed the concept of "God". He is the creator of everything, the one who gave us our lives. How could His benevolence be judged by us? Why would He even have to owe us "benevolence"? He's God, He is the judge of everything, He defines benevolence, He defines good and evil. My job is to obey
So you don't regard your God as omnibenevolent then?
"From a spiritual world view, what goes on here on Earth starts to make a lot of sense."
Ok, so a child is born with Harlequin-type ichthyosis, live a few days in total agony and then, mercifully, dies. Explain the spiritual benevolence if you could, please.
@noelplum99 "Ok, so a child is born with Harlequin-type ichthyosis, live a few days in total agony and then, mercifully, dies. Explain the spiritual benevolence if you could, please." That's easy. The poor little fucker doesn't have to be born into a world of atheists and queers. He is taken straight to heaven. How much better can it get?
"That's easy. The poor little fucker doesn't have to be born into a world of atheists and queers. He is taken straight to heaven. How much better can it get? "
Ok let's try another. A child is born perfectly healthy and so has to suffer a world full of 'atheists and queers': explain the spiritual benevolence if you could, please?
@noelplum99 "A child is born perfectly healthy and so has to suffer a world full of 'atheists and queers': explain the spiritual benevolence if you could, please?" Atheists and queers have the same chance for salvation as anyone else. All they have to do is repent and quit acting like assholes.
"Atheists and queers have the same chance for salvation as anyone else. All they have to do is repent and quit acting like assholes. "
Except that wasn't the question I asked. I asked about the child, not about the atheists and queers.
But while we are on the subject: explain how someone like myself (born into an irreligious family) has the same chance of salvation as someone born into a strongly Christian family?
(Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [Biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495)
I am sorry, how does referencing an article in "Trends in Ecology and Evolution" explain how i would have the same chance of salvation as someone born into a christian family (this is what it is showing up as a reply to)?
I thought more of you noel, I answered your questions, You avoid mine and then you want to move the discussion on.
I showed you how Darwinism has philosophical implications, Darwinism is very much a big part of what is called " modern evolutionary synthesis" and the Darwinian variant is what seems to drive the conviction of atheists that there is no god.
It is also embraced by the catholic church and anglican communion, two of the largest branches of Christinity.
I should also point out that much that has been done under the purported auspices of evolution actually demonstrates a total misunderstanding. Eugenics, for example, is often quoted and yet evolution is the absolute antithesis of eugenics which is actually far far closer to intelligent design (it is a driven process with a specific end goal in mind).
"yet evolution is the absolute antithesis of eugenics which is actually far far closer to intelligent design (it is a driven process with a specific end goal in mind)."
Intelligent Design and Evolution are not mutally exclusive, Design is not a problem for Evolution, Design is a problem for atheism, The fact you might think the dichotomy is between design and evolution further proves my point that atheists hold to evolution because they think it speaks to atheism.
The fact you cannot tell me what made stalin a bad atheist is a sure sign that atheism leads to moral nihilism is clear, I would bet that you live your life as if objective right and wrong exist even though Atheism and Naturalism provide you 0 grounding to say anything is right and wrong.
You also did not tell me how natural processes had an intended range of how people should behave and how that range can be violated, cont:
Stalin was a bad man - whether he was a bad atheist I have no idea. You sound like a bad atheist (because you believe in a deity) but as to Stalin I cannot pass comment.
then the only possible thing that may have stopped them is if they believed that there was a higher authority of whom they would be accountable to one day.
That is my point, Atheism logically leads to moral nihilism."
You misunderstand. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity or deities so, as far as I understand, the best sense i can make of the term 'bad atheist' is someone who is bad at not believing in a deity or deities. I am a good atheist, the pope is a terrible one.
Further, i infer from your assertion here that the ONLY reason you do 'good' things is because..
...God tells you to; the only reason you do not kill indiscriminately is not out of compassion for others but because god said not to. I arrive at that conclusion because the ONLY thing you take away replacing theism with atheism is the big guy in the sky dishing out the directives - everything else (the compassion, the innate empathy) remains, so i can only assume for you these count for 'nowt!!
However we have put atheism under the microscope and found that it fails to explain the existence of objective right and wrong(morality) As you recognize that objective right and wrong exists( morality) and objective should or should nots exist then it would be honest of you to acknowledge that this anomaly cannot be explained by atheism and thus there must be a moral law giver.
It is quite sad and somewhat embarassing to me to think that the so called God of the universe appears to not know how to interact with his creation of man in whom he made after his own likeness... WOW... how can this be?
wordauras 1 month ago
In Genesis, God says : it is not good for man to be alone...so he makes a woman. What that says to me is this... that Adam, before his fall, at his best, in the midst of God's own presence, God saw him as being ALONE .This give rise to the question; If God from the start saw man as being alone within his own presence before he sinned. How then can man , a lesser being, made after God's likeness think any different from his creator today after sin? Its not man's fault that he thinks he's alone
wordauras 1 month ago
i think im gonna be a buddist
billytwohatz21 1 month ago
I agree with many of your arguments and have some vids anyone who liked this might like. "The Evil in Nature Parts 1-4" in my channel are about the suffering in the world and how these things should reflect badly on God if he exists. Anyway, nice vid. Keep up the good work!
LadySorrowIshana 1 month ago
Neither atheist, nor theist, nor Christian, nor agnostic, nor satanist, nor of any so-called "modern faith". Thus said..What about the 10 ancient moral laws as a decider; not of what's "good", but what defines corruption? I could care less about the good/bad issues. They are all subjective. Mankind always comes out on top in his own mind -always "good".
Better challenge: Prove to me that there isn't some sordid entity masquerading as a divine agent. Life is too screwed up to have "evolved".
microvantastic 4 months ago
Are you an atheist?
Your questions are very good.
dorisfenella 4 months ago
As far as the killing of Children goes....I dunno. I know the message of the Cross was a message of peace. In the OT the cultures of the land may have been so wicked that even the children were tainted. Israel was told to wipe everything out and to not keep a thing from these cultures. They disobeyed. Because of this, Israel was constantly being conquered by foreign nations. Eventually, they were wiped out...the land anyway, and its people scattered.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
As far as Paul goes. He said that the body returns to the ground and our spirit goes to God. He never said the God does not raise the dead. You have Valley of Dry Bones. 2 Kings 13:21 where a dead man was brought to life when coming into contact with Elisha's bones. Lazarus was raised from the dead. Jesus brought a little girl back from death and raised from the dead Himself. So, how then do you say that God does not raise the dead?
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
Been doing some reading. Sometimes I tend to put my foot in my mouth. Your right. I was reading something about a guy who studied about 1500 cases that seem to show some sort of mental state even when the brain shows zero activity in a near death experience. However, what happens after as far as Heaven or Hell goes science does not contribute an info. If it did we would not be having this conversation.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
As far as your other question. What does science have to say about afterlife? But in the area of resurrection goes, a body needs certain things for life. Give it these things and it lives. Or are you saying that a God who created the universe can not resuscitate a dead body? Be more specific.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"What does science have to say about afterlife?"
A lot imo. For starters it has a lot to say about the concept of the immaterial immortal soul, too much to write here but if you are interested watch my video "watch?v=NrbFPSznUDA"
"Or are you saying that a God who created the universe can not resuscitate a dead body?"
I am saying He doesn't. As does Paul (I think it is in his letter to the Galatians) who recognised that our bodies get destroyed, the atoms get ...
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...taken up and used in other bodies and that God could not give us back our original body.
noelplum99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodsSpartan611 You assume that God is real, which there is no evidence of and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. So, prove a supernatural being exists and that it created everything therefore has the power to resurrect the dead, and then we can talk about what it could and couldn't do. If you have some evidence I would love to see it, we could change the entire world and write our names in the history books forever (well until we get wiped out or evolve into something that isn't human).
RoCk4LiFe90 2 days ago
Also, consider that God's covenant had not yet been given to other nations. Any qualities, rewards, or benefits could not be accessed if you were not Jewish at this time.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
But let's assume that God is "all good" what actions would God take against an evil people in order to uphold that goodness? If God is all knowing then He would know the hearts of these firstborn. Yes "firstborn" not infants. The hearts of these Egyptian firstborn would be hearts after other gods...not the one true God.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
Many of the firstborn would be infants.
I am not sure I am hearing you correctly here but you seem to be saying that infanticide is ok if the children in question worship the wrong god?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611 That's a morally terrible and also contradictory argument.
LTMagic21 1 month ago
Your issue with assuming the God is "all good" is that you are leaning on your own understand of said good. God is show to be good in scripture but is also shown to have possess anger. Anger by some would assume the absence good. But by what definition? You attempt to put God in a box of your own understanding. He needs to be a God that fits your understanding and agrees to your agendas....
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@bankheistvideos: I will not get drawn into heated debate. Check your emotions at the door sir.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
Site how God and the Bible are incompatible. Site an example of the Bible contradicting modern science.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"Site how God and the Bible are incompatible"
Omnibenevolence and the tenth plague of Egypt (could have picked hundreds but this godly infanticide will do)
"Site an example of the Bible contradicting modern science."
1) Noahs flood
2) An afterlife (specifically bodily resurrection, but spiritual resurrection will do if you prefer that misinterpretation of scripture)
noelplum99 5 months ago
What you say is "nature" I say is perversion of original intent of a loving God. Of course, Im wondering where your objections are. Is it the concept of God, Christians, or the Bible itself? What are your objections?
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"Is it the concept of God, Christians, or the Bible itself? What are your objections?"
The concept of God and scripture, not to mention the incompatibility of the two. Christians themselves are largely irrelevant. I have read at some length on how the bible was most likely composed, on the archaeological historicity, on the claims it makes in light of modern science and on other mesopotamian/near eastern religions and it all doesn't hang together at all....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...for example, In the Sumerian story of Enki and Ninhursag, one of the godesses Ninhursag creates to heal Enki's body is called Ninti. In Sumerian Ninti means both 'lady of the rib' and 'lady of life', it is a pun and as such we can appreciate the choice. Translate a modification of the story into hebrew and the pun is lost and the bizarre idea that Eve (which in hebrew means something to do with life) is created from Adam's rib makes no sense.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...for example, In the Sumerian story of Enki and Ninhursag, one of the godesses Ninhursag creates to heal Enki's body is called Ninti. In Sumerian Ninti means both 'lady of the rib' and 'lady of life', it is a pun and as such we can appreciate the choice. Translate a modification of the story into hebrew and the pun is lost and the bizarre idea that Eve (which in hebrew means something to do with life) is created from Adam's rib makes no sense.
noelplum99 5 months ago
Back to the Bible. The Bible says that He hangs the stars in the sky. (No pinholes) also says they can not be counted even before science came to that conclusion. It tells us the earth is a sphere and that it revolves around the sun. People used to be hanged or beheaded for saying such "nonsense".
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
I really don't want to get involved in this 'science in the bible' thing. For starters, the bible mentions so many different things that any position can be described as 'scientific' (and ones which contradict we are supposed to read metaphorically) and yet the outdated positions you mention were, in their day, backed up by biblical passages themselves!
noelplum99 5 months ago
But this is a question that needs answered. Everything in the universe from the sun, moon, stars, and black holes to, the origins of human life rest on the beginnings of the universe as the universe is the canvas for it all.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"Something always had to be there"
Again, this is a difficult one because 'always' is only what we think of it if we assume an external temporal realm, something we have no knowledge of either way. In any event, howdoes adding sentience as a characteristic in any way simplify an eternal 'first cause' ove a non-sentient one? It surely does the opposite.
"But this is a question that needs answered."
Except that doesn't mean we have an answer for it.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"Something always had to be there"
Again, this is a difficult one because 'always' is only what we think of it if we assume an external temporal realm, something we have no knowledge of either way. In any event, howdoes adding sentience as a characteristic in any way simplify an eternal 'first cause' ove a non-sentient one? It surely does the opposite.
"But this is a question that needs answered."
Except that doesn't mean we have an answer for it.
noelplum99 5 months ago
Speaking scientifically (leaving out God for the time being) I would say that the ideas you threw out while interesting are a bit complex. The simplest solution is the best solution. They don't offer much in measurements and numbers. The problem with the question of the universe is that we must eventually grasp the concept of infinity. Something always had to be there in order for something to come from it. This goes for anything from your aliens, the these spacial membranes...
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
as far as the universe goes. You are the artist here...im asking for you to paint me an image of the universe before it was. Speculate if you must. I wont debate evolution because I actually think its a sound theory. But I don't know enough to get paid for my opinion so.... ;)
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
".im asking for you to paint me an image of the universe before it was"
That is a strange way of putting it - a bit like asking me to tell you what my mother looked like before she was conceived!
Personally it seems there are a great many models on the go, in science and beyond, for what constitutes what is now sometimes called the metaverse and i have no special affiliation to any of them. One of the interesting ones is that the universe is huge....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...and i mean really huge, and in a state of eternal inflation. Regions, such as our own, form when the inflaton field collapses in a region to form a bubble of space expanding at a more sedate pace. Then there is the membrane theory, another mathematically predicted idea, which suggests that our universe may be a higher dimensional brane and that the big bang event is the result of a collision with another such brane (hard to picture but these things are derived and tested ....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...and i mean really huge, and in a state of eternal inflation. Regions, such as our own, form when the inflaton field collapses in a region to form a bubble of space expanding at a more sedate pace. Then there is the membrane theory, another mathematically predicted idea, which suggests that our universe may be a higher dimensional brane and that the big bang event is the result of a collision with another such brane (hard to picture but these things are derived and tested ....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...entirely in the realm of maths where the limits of our perception is not an obstacle). Another, and one of my favourites, is nick bostroms simulation hypothesis. Nick hypothesises that if universes exist with sentient creatures with sufficiently high technology, they are likely to try and simulate universes themselves and populate those universes with simulated sentient intelligences. Now here is the interesting bit: undoubtedly any such technologically.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...entirely in the realm of maths where the limits of our perception is not an obstacle). Another, and one of my favourites, is nick bostroms simulation hypothesis. Nick hypothesises that if universes exist with sentient creatures with sufficiently high technology, they are likely to try and simulate universes themselves and populate those universes with simulated sentient intelligences. Now here is the interesting bit: undoubtedly any such technologically.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...advanced species would run such a simulation more than once (why on earth would you only do it once, after all?) and so his conclusion is that the number of simulated universes with sentient life should exceed the number of real universes with sentient life ergo it is more likely than not that we live in a simulated rather than a real universe! Of course the theological implications are immense: it means we could have a sentient creator, a god-like figure who.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...advanced species would run such a simulation more than once (why on earth would you only do it once, after all?) and so his conclusion is that the number of simulated universes with sentient life should exceed the number of real universes with sentient life ergo it is more likely than not that we live in a simulated rather than a real universe! Of course the theological implications are immense: it means we could have a sentient creator, a god-like figure who.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...not only created our universe but holds our fate in its hands, but that rather than being omniscient, omnipotent etc etc, in its own realm the creator of our universe need to be no grander than we ourselves are, just with access to far superior technology.
All interesting stuff, but speculative mathematics aside not a shred of evidence on which to favour one above the other. The same is true if you compare traditional deism. The problem I have with your beliefs it that, unlike...
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...not only created our universe but holds our fate in its hands, but that rather than being omniscient, omnipotent etc etc, in its own realm the creator of our universe need to be no grander than we ourselves are, just with access to far superior technology.
All interesting stuff, but speculative mathematics aside not a shred of evidence on which to favour one above the other. The same is true if you compare traditional deism. The problem I have with your beliefs it that, unlike...
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...not only created our universe but holds our fate in its hands, but that rather than being omniscient, omnipotent etc etc, in its own realm the creator of our universe need to be no grander than we ourselves are, just with access to far superior technology.
All interesting stuff, but speculative mathematics aside not a shred of evidence on which to favour one above the other. The same is true if you compare traditional deism. The problem I have with your beliefs it that, unlike...
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...these other ideas, what you have faith in has lots of contradictory myths and legends tacked on that sound all too much like ancient human story-telling and arrogantly overplay the importance of the role of one intelligent ape, on one small planet, in one solar system, one of 100 billion in one galaxy, itself but one of 200 billion galaxies in the observable portion of the universe alone. It isn't that you god concept is too big, it is that in application .....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...such as his purported interest in whether I am masturbaing, embarrassingly parochial - entirely in tune with what someone may have understood of the world thousands of years ago, believing the stars were but pinholes in the firmament, but so obviously the product of minds and men given what we have learned since.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...such as his purported interest in whether I am masturbaing, embarrassingly parochial - entirely in tune with what someone may have understood of the world thousands of years ago, believing the stars were but pinholes in the firmament, but so obviously the product of minds and men given what we have learned since.
noelplum99 5 months ago
And what makes living a sinless life so mundane. You can still enjoy art, music, culture, food, people's company. What makes you happy? A calm sunset at the beach, driving in the city. There are so many more aspects to this life than just gratifying your flesh. Outward living is pleasing to many. Why would you degrade it so?
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
This means we need Christ, but not as an escape or a crutch. Christ is a restoration to what we ought to be.
Im glad that I am having this conversation. You actually helped me see something important. God had to look away from Jesus when he was on the cross. This is because Christ took on the sin of the world. God won't look upon sin. So why would I? I should imitate my God! To do so I need only gaze upon Him. Who cares what is wrong. You need not know it.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
Maybe knowing wrong is the problem. The point of the relationship with Christ is to look to Him in all you do. If you gaze upon perfection, you begin to imitate it. If you gaze upon sin, you imitate sin. So why gaze upon it. Man was told what not to do. It was only one thing! Just one! The first, first commandment. Now we need ten! Read the ten commandments...is it really that hard? No, but in a way, you can't keep them because to even hate is like murder.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
What's wrong with speculating on what the universe was like before it began to spin and grow? What's wrong with answering this question. Also...you say you cannot rule out God, so how are you atheist? How can you explain this world we live in? How are we here?
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"What's wrong with speculating on what the universe was like before it began to spin and grow?"
Nothing, but if you assert that the start of the universe was the start of time then there is no 'before' to speculate about.
".you say you cannot rule out God, so how are you atheist?"
Many theists admit they cannot rule out being wrong and there being no god. For myself, for gods such as the specific one you believe in i think His existence is about as likely as Gandalfs.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
....but when it comes to the ultimate origin of the universe, as we know so little it would be foolish to start ruling out entire conceptual areas when we know so little and when the gamut of possible entities that would constitute a 'god' is so wide.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"How can you explain this world we live in? How are we here?"
I don't want to be awkward but this is still too vague. What do you want me to comment on, the universe, the earth, abiogenesis, evolutionary progression?
noelplum99 5 months ago
Adam and Eve were given a choice. "You may eat of any tree in the garden." He gave them freedom. But then He told them to not eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If they did, they would die. They were informed of the consequences of their actions.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
What it actually says is "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" which hardly sounds like a recantation of immortality (which was not claimed prior to this) but an immediate sanction.
"They were informed of the consequences of their actions."
They were, but they were never told their actions were wrong nor did they know what 'wrong' meant (they were innocent). Nor would they know that death was a bad thing if they had no instincts.
noelplum99 5 months ago
Sin is not the reason for diversity. Unless by diverse you are to claim that "wonderful" diversity is engaging in sexual acts or murder. I love various cultures around the world. Other languages are beautiful. I actually love arabic, and russian.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"Sin is not the reason for diversity. Unless by diverse you are to claim that "wonderful" diversity is engaging in sexual acts or murder."
Christianity lays claim to so much of what we do as being sinful and yet if you sucked out every single such thing the world would be a most tedious place. Apparently, i am told, nothing we do is good enough for your God
noelplum99 5 months ago
You would presume nonsense that God placed them in the position, but I will answer by saying, "relationship." We can choose to obey and choose to disobey. Without that choice, there is no free will, thus there is no relationship.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"We can choose to obey and choose to disobey."
But there's was an uninformed choice, God may as well have given a newborn baby a choice - at least a newborn has its instincts, according to you Adam and Eve didn't even have that!!!
Secondly, what kind a relationship is it when the choice is 'obey me or suffer torment and torture'? I will tell you: it is called an abusive relationship.
noelplum99 5 months ago
What I am saying is that God did not put the instincts in us you are claiming He did. I try to control my thoughts but when that fails, I control my actions.
Also, I would like you to tell me:
1st) According to you, how are you able to say that there is no God?
2nd) give me the picture of the Universe before time was time. What did it look like?
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"What I am saying is that God did not put the instincts in us you are claiming He did."
So our instincts are the result of the fall then?
Now I am really confused. So Adam and Eve were not given the knowledge of good and evil, were devoid of instncts and yet were expected to know how to behave!!! Can you not see my friend how, given your reading of things, they were doomed from the start?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
1) If you are talking about an amorphous god-concept stripped of the mythology then I would answer to you that I cannot say for certain no such entity exists, all I can say is that we have no evidence for such a being and positing one doesn't make things any clearer. However, your faith involves some concepts that jar with our experience, such as omnibenevolence, and a huge series of tall tales many of which are evidentially wrong and/or impossible.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
2) How can I give you an atemporal and aspacial picture?
"before time was time"
This is a meaningless statement. There is no 'before' the start of time because 'before' is a temporal term - you are trying to chronologically order events without a temporal framework. Ofc we could both hypothesise a pre-existant temporal realm but that doesn't help either of our worldviews in terms of an ultimate answer.
noelplum99 5 months ago
Who says he put those genes there? What if these genes are a result of sin? Or what if our perfection was tainted and these genes devolved in a way? Again, im claiming our present nature is the result of the fall.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
So you are saying that our dna altered as a result of sin? You are asserting that sin itself is the reason for much of the wonderful diversity of human behaviour? Can I ask you if you have anything to actually base that claim on?
noelplum99 5 months ago
A good man can commit the evilest of deeds. An evil man is capable of saving a life. Its a choice. We choose.
I have made my position clear, the world is the way it is because of us. Let me ask you a question. If not God...then how did we get here?
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"A good man can commit the evilest of deeds. An evil man is capable of saving a life. Its a choice. We choose."
Agreed. i never said we were genetically pre-ordained (though chrisdtians believe god imbues us with a soul so presumably He decides who get sthe evil souls?), what i said is that we are predisposed. Why would God create genes to predispose us to things he is then going to punish us for as sinful? That doesn't make any sense.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"If not God...then how did we get here?"
I would be delighted to answer your question, of course, but it is so wide in scope I really need you to be a bit more specific. Which part of 'how we got here' do you have a problem with? Let me know and i will tell you what i believe and where i see the limits of our present knowedge is at.
noelplum99 5 months ago
There were two trees in the garden. Knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. Imagine evil men living forever....Hitler? Stalin? That would be bad.
As far as animals go....they are animals. They no not of right and wrong, just instinct. We can judge right from wrong. I have aggressive thoughts as well. Evil thoughts I will admit to. Do I act on them? No. An animal is subject to its breeding and environment.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"There were two trees in the garden. Knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. Imagine evil men living forever....Hitler? Stalin? That would be bad."
Fine, but that doesn't answer my question. there is a clear reference in that chapter to the possibility of man gaining immortality but no reference to him losing it, so on what basis are you asserting that man possessed immortality to begin with?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"As far as animals go....they are animals."
As fas as humans go, we are animals.
"They no not of right and wrong, just instinct"
This is massively untrue. you need to look up the experiements and observations of other higher primates (than ourselves) and see the many observed and catalogued instances of decision-making based on empathy, not simply on instinct (can i suggest Frans de waals book 'the age of empathy')
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
....but perhaps you can explain to me why God would give us such an overwhelming sex drive if He so seriously disapproves of us expressing it? If I was to selectively breed ultra-aggressive dogs would it then be fair of me to punish those dogs for being aggressive? I think not.
the claim being made is that God made Adam and Eve innocent, unknowing of good and evil and then punished them for not following orders.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...even though God knew that innocence of good and evil would have precluded them from knowing what was good ie doing what God tells you to do. But no, apparently this is not Gods fault, even though he knew in advance he was placing them in a position whereby they were bound to fail. nope, it is not Gods fault, apparently it is yours and mine all these years later.
Utter and absolute nonsense, i can think of no other way to describe it.
noelplum99 5 months ago
Further, you degrade yourself by speaking profanities sir. But to answer the other question, why would babies be dropped in a perfect/sinless world? There would be no death, no sickness. We handed this world over to that. Its that simple.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"Further, you degrade yourself by speaking profanities sir."
I have degraded myself a lot further than that before, i can assure you :)
"There would be no death, no sickness."
You have to recall that for me I am having to entirely suspend my worldview even to have this conversation. The idea that death only exists because of mans 'sin' when life existed on this planet for several billion years before our arrival is ludicrous, but from your perspective another poser......
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
....upon reading the second genesis account it appears that God is somewhat concerned that Adam has become like the gods after eating from the treee of the knowledge of good and evil and in 3:22 is concerned that if he now eats from the tree of life he will also gain immortality. So the question is, why would God be concerned about man gaining immortality (like the gods) if he already had immortality?
noelplum99 5 months ago
Really? You think God gave us the thoughts of hatred and lusts? You think those were the ideas planted in our heads by God? Sorry, but your wrong. The Bible tells us, "what ever is pure, what ever is holy...." those are what we are supposed to think of. Our mind is a dark place because of sin. Again, by our choice. Our own freewill.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"You think God gave us the thoughts of hatred and lusts?"
No, I am an atheist, just trying to make sense of your position.
I wasn't suggesting your god 'planted the thoughts' but rather that these are normal parts of the human condition. Nearly every mammal lusts - most are preoccupied by sex - so why would you expect us to be any different? Is a bonobo's mind a dark place because of bonobo 'sin' or is this just silly talk? Bonobos think about sex because the bonobo that .....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...mates the most has the most offspring, so most young bonobos are descended from bonobos that thought a lot about sex, so they inherit the predisposition. Humans are no different, we are preoccupied by sex because that is an inheritable trait and a valuable one in the 'reproduction game'.
A question. You talk of God not planting these things in our thoughts, so are you aware that we have already isolated genetic alleles that predispose people to aggression and dishonesty?
noelplum99 5 months ago
Plus, your asking the wrong questions. I would instead challenge Christians by asking this. "Where were you when the tsunami hit? Where were you when the children died? If you have this divine power in you....why do you not use it?" You will never disprove God....you can dispel the rumors that there are Christians living out what is presented in the Bible. So I ask....Christians! Why are we dropping the ball?
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
Do not put words in my mouth, I never said that they deserve that fate. There is an age where right and wrong is not understand. Babies drowning is the result of the fallen state of this world. Which you (understanding good and evil) are responsible for. And so am I.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
So if the world wasn't in a fallen state how would that stop babies drowning? If a baby fell into the water would it just bounce out again, or something?
Your whole argument is silly in the extreme and amounts to: God lets the babies drown because we masturbate (on the urge He has given us) and that is OUR fault.
noelplum99 5 months ago
Because of my wrongs, the unfortunate happens. Its a sickening thing to me and I hate it. But....there is a way out. You speak of storms, I was in the midst of one that was calmed by a man of God. You speak of illness, but I have seen the terminally ill become healed through prayer and fasting
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
So you are saying that the babies deserged to die in the tsunami and that God is doing the right thing to allow them to drown...... but that a preacher may have changed Gods mind if he had made the right prayer?
noelplum99 5 months ago
Have you ever had any hatred towards any man? Ever think of a woman in a way you shouldn't? This is sin. Sin separates us and this world from God. My sin is the cause of suffering in this world. I cannot claim perfection, no man can. Its really simple to grasp. Im not speaking in riddles.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
Your God is supposed to be omniscient and yet he would have to be a crazy ignoramus for what you assert to be true. Think about it: you are saying that He has given us certain innate characteristics, fundamental to what makes us human and then punished the entire planet when we act on them.
I agree, you are not talking riddles, you are talking s**t!
noelplum99 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
Your God is supposed to be omniscient and yet he would have to be a crazy ignoramus for what you assert to be true. Think about it: you are saying that He has given us certain innate characteristics, fundamental to what makes us human and then punished the entire planet when we act on them.
I agree, you are not talking riddles, you are talking s**t!
noelplum99 5 months ago
I think I have made it obvious...but I will rephrase. God made creation and man. God gave dominion over creation to man. Man gave everything over to Satan. Because of this, we see death, disasters, famine. No one willed the tsunami, but because of our choice, these things happen.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"I think I have made it obvious.."
I assure you you didn't.
"God gave dominion over creation to man. Man gave everything over to Satan."
Which 'man' is this exactly? Are you to be held accountable for my misdeeds? Should you go to prison if my great great grandfather got involved in a fight 80 years ago?
Personally i don't recall handing anything over to satan and i doubt the children and babies who dies in that tsunami in 2005 did either.
noelplum99 5 months ago
This is perhaps difficult for many who wish to paint God to be either imperfect or even not real. But fact is, man gave this world over to evil. The Devil is the prince of this world...we gave that to him. The fault of all of these disasters, birth defects, illness, and death, rests on our shoulders.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
Or man did this to himself. Everything was created perfect. Then, God gave all of creation to man to look after. Then man handed this world over to the devil. None of this is God's will....its man's.
GodsSpartan611 5 months ago
@GodsSpartan611
"None of this is God's will....its man's."
Ok, so when the tsunami struck on 2005 and killed over 200,000 people, tell me who exactly willed that to happen?
noelplum99 5 months ago
No christian would ever watch this video?
FREENAMEFTW 5 months ago
@EternaISkeptic7
"You can yap and yap about different stories while avoiding the fact that there was one event."
In the atheist account of things there is one creation event so i assume you believe atheists are describing the same thing as theists then?
A question for you: what would an origin story have to contain for to to admit it was NOT describing the same event as the genesis accounts?
noelplum99 5 months ago
if you have any questions, or think of any holes in my answers, definitely send me a message, i like to talk about these types of things because if we do not get a bunch of minds together to think and "debate" then we will be stuck in the same spot with no progress towards the ultimate goal...that goal being the real truth. I am glad you are not one of those atheists who are close minded like a lot of theists to the possibilities of new ideas :)
zaph1987 5 months ago
and btw even though i am a theist, i do not deny the fact that there may not be a god, it would be silly to ultimately decide for 100% on something there is no evidence to prove or disprove it...so i hope i was able to give you some insight on this one persons own opinion, i may be a theist, but my views on the world are far different from most theists....most would condemn me to hell for my beliefs, but i smile at the ignorant, for it is not their fault they do not understand.
zaph1987 5 months ago
@zaph1987
"so i hope i was able to give you some insight on this one persons own opinion"
yes and i very much appreciate your comments, many thanks :)
noelplum99 5 months ago
cont....therefore showing benevolence through the power of love. what i view as horrible and unnatural could just be normal for someone else. it helps us to throw free our closed minds and open them up to a whole new world of possibilities, for if we view something that used to be out of the norm as now part of the norm it may help from persecution...for in the past disfigured people were branded freaks are now labled as the rest of us...people...
zaph1987 5 months ago
and to answer your second question i would have to say that natural disasters and babies being born with disfigurements could possibly be a test to the "faithful " that no matter what happens god has your back, sure your baby may be horribly disfigured, but you are still going to love it with all your heart showing it and other people that even though to them it may look like a freak, to someone else it is a beautiful person and should not be judged based on appearances...cont
zaph1987 5 months ago
@zaph1987
With respect, the disfigured and severely handicapped baby may be a 'test' for the parents faith - the argument could work from that perspective, but it utterly ignores the elephant in the room. The baby is a human being in its own right: what about its chance of life?
Secondly, a God who allows (or causes) your baby to be born with the worst imaginable abnormalitiesis not reeally the kind of thing i would particularly want 'watching my back'.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 understandable, however from the people i have met who are disfigured or handicapped, they do not see it as a crutch or as a disability, rather a difference. every person i know with a handicap or disability to my surprise has a wonderful outlook on life that makes me smile...and they seem to genuinely enjoy their life. i actually admire people like that because it seems like they have a stronger bravado, whereas a lot of people take things to heart way too much....cont
zaph1987 5 months ago
@zaph1987
I am not talking about someone with half a leg missing but people born with half their internal organs missing or no skin covering their bodies. Babies who live for a few hours in total agony before passing away.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 ok well that i have absolutely no explanation for, i am just as curious as you are as to how this could be allowed to happen...either way it is fucked up and wrong for there is nothing an unborn child has done to deserve that
zaph1987 5 months ago
@noelplum99 cont....so even though their bodies may be more frail their spirit (and i dont mean soul) is stronger than most "normal" people i know. so maybe that could be considered an even trade?
zaph1987 5 months ago
@noelplum99 and yes i suppose i should have worded the "watching my back" thing a little different...maybe i should have said something like, if your child is happy, and you make them happy, isnt that all that matters? i mean i know people who were born "normal" and had parents that ignored them a lot and it scarred them, where as most "abnormal" people i know had a closer upbringing seeing as how their parents were more concerned for them, so it built a more solid relationship.
zaph1987 5 months ago
Hello I am a theist not a christian and to answer your first question i would have to say that i have no grounds to say that god is good, but rather that god is just because if you do something good you are rewarded with the feeling of fulfillment and satisfaction whereas if you do something bad you are filled with remorse and regret, so based on the feelings of majority of people out there i would have to say god is a just being, and justice is a good thing, technically making him good...
zaph1987 5 months ago
@zaph1987
"because if you do something good you are rewarded with the feeling of fulfillment and satisfaction"
I understand your argument but, in the context of this video, how do you know what acts constitute 'something good'? Once you assert that life is really too complex for us to understand the complexities and that apparently bad acts could actually be benevolent for hidden reasons then the reverse becomes equally true. It seems to me in the replies you have made to me here you....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...have perpetuated the very thing i am railing against in this video, specifically taking all God's benevolent-looking acts at face value and asserting that all God's malevolent-looking acts are actually benevolent for reasons totally beyond our ken.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 well you are instilled with values given to you by your parents or upbringers from a young age to teach you right from wrong, its not god its not the bible, its people...but when i do good things i dont think of my mother or father, i think of how it makes me feel good, so in reality i suppose we all interpret through our own different experiences of what is good or bad, for instance if someone punches me in the face it is unpleasant so i dont have the urge to do it to anyone else.
zaph1987 5 months ago
@zaph1987
I don't disagree with the basic premise you are making with regard to how we innately decipher right from wrong but then that was never really at question here. i mean to say, when you see over two hundred thousand people swept away by a tsunami in the indian ocean do you innately feel what a good thing that is? Of course not and so to maintain a position of Gods omnibenevolence you have to totally suspend both your intuition and your common sense.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 oh well i do not believe god is omnibenevolent, or omnitiant or omnipotent, he may see all posibilites of your life, but which one you choose is up to you, for if i blew my head off right now, he technically should have seen that coming which would defeat the whole free will thing, and i do believe some things are out of his control....so i dont know what i would technically be described as cause i side with some of both atheists and theists points lol
zaph1987 5 months ago
@noelplum99 and i agree with this statement "to maintain a position of Gods omnibenevolence you have to totally suspend both your intuition and your common sense" that is why i like to question things as well cause it doesnt all add up from either side, but who says that the tsunami is from god? and im not gonna say its from satan cause that makes me sound dumb lol but the earth has its own laws of nature, and things do happen...it is very tragic and i question why to god a lot with no answer
zaph1987 5 months ago
@zaph1987
You sound very much like a deist - you see an entity who created our universe and then pretty much has left it ever since to run its course.
i have never had much of an issue with deism - and i don't discount it entirely, I just don't see any specific reason to accept it.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 i was just trying to come at it from a more religious approach since that is what you requested :P
zaph1987 5 months ago
@noelplum99 " and that apparently bad acts could actually be benevolent for hidden reasons then the reverse becomes equally true"
I do not believe bad things happen for a good reason, or good things happen for a bad reason. i believe good/bad things happen because its all part of the karmic wheel that perpetuates the balance of the world, for if there was no bad then there could be no good and vice verse, but who is to say someone born without the use of their legs, sight, etc.....cont
zaph1987 5 months ago
@noelplum99 cont.....are really bad things? they are perceived as bad to people who are classified as normal. so let me ask you this, why is it bad, is it because its different than average? if so then if "normal" civilization was without the use of their legs and someone was born with the use of their legs, would it then be considered bad that they could walk? either way it just perpetuates that difference is a bad thing. either way people are flawed in their own ways, some physical some mental
zaph1987 5 months ago
@zaph1987 You are very much on the right track. It is our human judgments of good and evil that produce these unfortunate appearances, which are therefore illusory in nature. Of course it follows that God cannot be faulted for not "fixing" an illusion.
marc5lake 5 months ago
@EternaISkeptic7
PS: my assumption is that you are the same guy as the guy i banned. That is fine, as long as you debate and don't just throw shit around again. If you do i will block you again
noelplum99 5 months ago
@EternaISkeptic7
"What don't you understand about ONE event, many stories about ONE event?"
I understand what that means but it doesn't make any sense. you have simply reiterated the same statement and not explained to me how the two giant ants and the rainbow serpent fit in with the genesis narratives. I suppose Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are two stories about the same event? they are about as fucking similar!
noelplum99 5 months ago
If there is no objective right and wrong then morality does not exist and only personal preference, some might call it hedonism!
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
"If there is no objective right and wrong then morality does not exist and only personal preference, some might call it hedonism!"
My cat isn't hedonistic so presumably God has prescribed a moral code for her also?
Anyway, look, enjoyable as this is I simply don't have the time to keep going with the dozen or so strands we have broken into here (you may well be in the same boat). I just wanted to say someone has flagged your comments as 'spam' and it isn't me!
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
OK, I think I know who might have spammed them
thanks
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
but lets pretend that the dna code came about by blind an unintelligent forces, * * Cough Cough.
This would be the result of working on the physical, there would be no evolution of moral traits, if you enjoy fishing then there is no gene for the love of fishing that is going to get passed on, Talking about non physical traits evolving is absurd.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
"if you enjoy fishing then there is no gene for the love of fishing"
Correct to a point. It is highly unlikely there would be a specific allele whose only function was to elicit a predisposition for fishing BUT a specific allele could switch on in a specific circumstance during development and be incorporated in some such function. After all, we can breed dogs with very very specific character traits and very specific personalities so you have no grounds to ridicule this.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...I mean you may as well assert that it is absurd to suggest that pointers are genetically more predisposed towards pointing than bassett hounds, or that golden retrievers are genetically more predisposed towards friendly companionship than pitbulls.
i think some people get a bit carried away with regard to talking about 'a gene for x', however, which is why i assert that a predisposition towards empathetic sympathy is a broad brush and that accounts for the 'misfirings'...
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...such as the empathy and pain i felt for the frog i trod on some 16 years ago - rationally i know that frogs do not suffer or bemoan their fate the same way i do but my empathetic sense still incorrectly places me in the twisted and crushed body of that frog and it still makes me wince today.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
I think we will have to agree to disagree on what morality is and its definition, I don't want to distract you from other things, thanks for the cordial debate.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
Indeed, I have enjopyed the exchange and wish you well :)
noelplum99 5 months ago
HEY NoelPlum. Change your name to PruneFace. hahahahaa Did you just get out of bed? Or is that how you usually wear your hair? Do us a favor and comb that shit, put on a decent shirt so that you at least LOOK intelligent. Stop the ranting and raving like a front porch fundie evangelist. Makes you look like an idiot. OH you ARE? I thought so. hahahahahaha
I bet your mom is ashamed of you isn't she? C'mon, tell the truth. Your mom said you're an idiot too didn't she? Listen to mom asshole.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
You have something sensible to say then say it. One more post like that and i will block you.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 "You have something sensible to say then say it. One more post like that and i will block you." Of course you will. I well expect so from a little loudmouthed chickenshit. It's all you've got. You're one powerful tool. You must never have been in the military because that's exactly what they would say to you and worse. AND that WAS sensible. Somebody should tell you what a fucking idiot you make of yourself on screen. You should be thanking me but no you will block me.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
"You should be thanking me but no you will block "
Correct.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 So actually atheists believe in creation and have their own myth. They just can't get away from God can they? It baffles them that they are like the American Indians who all believed in creation. They look down at those primitive people and say, "They didn't understand and needed an explanation so they just made on up." HAR HAR HAR HAR All the while the evotards needed an explanation so THEY MADE ONE UP. HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
For God to be what I call "God", he would have to be good, or Good is God, Good is a mind, is all powerful, the Creator, so what ever He does would ultimately be good. And if He allows evil to happen to us, He is still good. This view puts God as infinitely more important then humans, and the source of human importance. I'm sure this will offend a lot of you. I don't believe there is "importance" in an atheistic view, its delusion. No reason to believe we matter at all. Sorry.
kvash3154 6 months ago
This is pretty stupid and you refute yourself,
How exactly would you know what an omnibenevolent being would be as well?
You are asking from the same position we are, which means you have no answer. So basically this is the dumbest fuckin argument I've ever heard against God.
It shares the same stupidity as when an atheist trys to act like he knows HOW AN OMNISCIENT BEING SHOULD ACT....
Why are you so fuckin stupid? get yourself a philosophy book and learn the good arguments.
AngelicHeretic1 6 months ago
The simple fact is, that the majority of HUMANS on this Earth are mentally deranged, believing and participate in the biggest of lies. Not one Christian nor religious zealot can tell you why their GOD has NEVER healed an amputee. Again, it is part of the delusion to believe that there's always something better on the other-side. The very fact that a majority of Christians use the King James version of the Bible, is testament that a Pedophile King, can change the mind of the masses for profit.
MrSchpankme 6 months ago
Totally subscribed :)
tgseason12 7 months ago
Here is your answer, tho' you may not accept it. The nature of God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus, who said "My Kingdom is not of this world:" and "the Kingdom of Heaven is within YOU." In God's kingdom there is no death, illness, hunger, or sin. This Kingdom must be realized within oneself in order for it to manifest in the outer picture. Jesus did this, he knew that only God is Real, that all negative appearances have no basis in Reality, which is eternal perfection.
marc5lake 7 months ago
(cont)so what I'm saying is that so many non-believers use their unhappiness or that of others as "proof of no God", which is rediculous. What could God (any possible God) owe to us??
The truth is that He gave us LIFE (amazing!!!), and He's given us the ability to decide how we'll use that life (benevolent!!!).
jball5gk 7 months ago
(cont)world view, our lives and this planet make no sense at all. From a spiritual world view, what goes on here on Earth starts to make a lot of sense.
....but note this point as well...
You've completely missed the concept of "God". He is the creator of everything, the one who gave us our lives. How could His benevolence be judged by us? Why would He even have to owe us "benevolence"? He's God, He is the judge of everything, He defines benevolence, He defines good and evil. My job is to obey
jball5gk 7 months ago
@jball5gk
"How could His benevolence be judged by us?"
So you don't regard your God as omnibenevolent then?
"From a spiritual world view, what goes on here on Earth starts to make a lot of sense."
Ok, so a child is born with Harlequin-type ichthyosis, live a few days in total agony and then, mercifully, dies. Explain the spiritual benevolence if you could, please.
noelplum99 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noelplum99 "Ok, so a child is born with Harlequin-type ichthyosis, live a few days in total agony and then, mercifully, dies. Explain the spiritual benevolence if you could, please." That's easy. The poor little fucker doesn't have to be born into a world of atheists and queers. He is taken straight to heaven. How much better can it get?
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
"That's easy. The poor little fucker doesn't have to be born into a world of atheists and queers. He is taken straight to heaven. How much better can it get? "
Ok let's try another. A child is born perfectly healthy and so has to suffer a world full of 'atheists and queers': explain the spiritual benevolence if you could, please?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 "A child is born perfectly healthy and so has to suffer a world full of 'atheists and queers': explain the spiritual benevolence if you could, please?" Atheists and queers have the same chance for salvation as anyone else. All they have to do is repent and quit acting like assholes.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
"Atheists and queers have the same chance for salvation as anyone else. All they have to do is repent and quit acting like assholes. "
Except that wasn't the question I asked. I asked about the child, not about the atheists and queers.
But while we are on the subject: explain how someone like myself (born into an irreligious family) has the same chance of salvation as someone born into a strongly Christian family?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
(Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [Biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495)
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
I am sorry, how does referencing an article in "Trends in Ecology and Evolution" explain how i would have the same chance of salvation as someone born into a christian family (this is what it is showing up as a reply to)?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
I thought more of you noel, I answered your questions, You avoid mine and then you want to move the discussion on.
I showed you how Darwinism has philosophical implications, Darwinism is very much a big part of what is called " modern evolutionary synthesis" and the Darwinian variant is what seems to drive the conviction of atheists that there is no god.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
It is also embraced by the catholic church and anglican communion, two of the largest branches of Christinity.
I should also point out that much that has been done under the purported auspices of evolution actually demonstrates a total misunderstanding. Eugenics, for example, is often quoted and yet evolution is the absolute antithesis of eugenics which is actually far far closer to intelligent design (it is a driven process with a specific end goal in mind).
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
"yet evolution is the absolute antithesis of eugenics which is actually far far closer to intelligent design (it is a driven process with a specific end goal in mind)."
Intelligent Design and Evolution are not mutally exclusive, Design is not a problem for Evolution, Design is a problem for atheism, The fact you might think the dichotomy is between design and evolution further proves my point that atheists hold to evolution because they think it speaks to atheism.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@noelplum99
The fact you cannot tell me what made stalin a bad atheist is a sure sign that atheism leads to moral nihilism is clear, I would bet that you live your life as if objective right and wrong exist even though Atheism and Naturalism provide you 0 grounding to say anything is right and wrong.
You also did not tell me how natural processes had an intended range of how people should behave and how that range can be violated, cont:
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
Stalin was a bad man - whether he was a bad atheist I have no idea. You sound like a bad atheist (because you believe in a deity) but as to Stalin I cannot pass comment.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
" you sound like a bad atheist ( because you believe in a deity)
Oh come on noel, You are not going to give me the sophomoric one less god crap are you?
There is a difference believing in a form of divinity and rejecting divinity altogether.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
then the only possible thing that may have stopped them is if they believed that there was a higher authority of whom they would be accountable to one day.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@noelplum99
" whether he was a bad atheist I have no idea"
That is my point, Atheism logically leads to moral nihilism.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
"" whether he was a bad atheist I have no idea"
That is my point, Atheism logically leads to moral nihilism."
You misunderstand. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity or deities so, as far as I understand, the best sense i can make of the term 'bad atheist' is someone who is bad at not believing in a deity or deities. I am a good atheist, the pope is a terrible one.
Further, i infer from your assertion here that the ONLY reason you do 'good' things is because..
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...God tells you to; the only reason you do not kill indiscriminately is not out of compassion for others but because god said not to. I arrive at that conclusion because the ONLY thing you take away replacing theism with atheism is the big guy in the sky dishing out the directives - everything else (the compassion, the innate empathy) remains, so i can only assume for you these count for 'nowt!!
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
Do you not agree that it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun and is not a matter of opinion or vote?
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@noelplum99
However we have put atheism under the microscope and found that it fails to explain the existence of objective right and wrong(morality) As you recognize that objective right and wrong exists( morality) and objective should or should nots exist then it would be honest of you to acknowledge that this anomaly cannot be explained by atheism and thus there must be a moral law giver.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago