well if their is a god, i highly doubt he has nothing to say about the evil going on in the world and evolution is not hundred percent proven, the theory of it is largely based on faith just as much as any religion. also, i've never heard any man speak with as much wisdom about life than jesus and the words he spoke are really needed in the world right now if you ask me and the bible is too wise and complex for someone uneducated to just make it up & this world might change but god never changes
@piaybackjunkie17 Thanks for your comments. I agree with you about evolution - it takes a lot of faith to believe in it ... Also agree with your comment about Jesus - that his wisdom is incomparable. "Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance." Jude 1:2
@rickytinks You're welcome, mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance too! :) Ignore all the people who don't agree with you, if you believe something is true then that's all that matters.x
If god didn't create the world...how is it trees take in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen...when we take in oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide. a little TOO perfect prahaps? (i'm christian, but i support all religions so please don't be rude ^.^)
@Playumaya I'm sure it would have survived somehow on Star Trek, in fact, didn't James T Kirk have an affair with an animal of that description? I'm picking up that you are angry about "religion" and you're right to be, so am I, and so was Jesus - he repeatedly rebuked the established church leaders (the Pharisees and Sadducees). The "church" has made many mistakes over the centuries and continues to do so, but there are genuine Christians out there, that live by faith not hypocrisy ...
@chibinekogirl101 I was about to politely splutter about your comical "a little TOO perfect prahaps(sic)?" but then I saw @Playumaya 's response. Can't top that. I bet the more educated (or those willing to look to those who are knowledgeable and qualified) trees have the same exasperating conversations when we're not looking.
@chibinekogirl101 Trees are plants and we are animals. There was a point in Earth's history when neither animals or plants existed, but other, simpler forms of life did exist. On a cellular level, animals and plants aren't that different.
@Zoopedia I agree with your first sentence! Although, as a Christian, I would say that we are much more than just animals, as I believe that we have a spirit. How do you know that there was a point when neither animals or plants existed? What are these simpler forms of life? I have to disagree with your last sentence - animals and plants are very different on a cellular level. The internal workings of a cell are amazingly complex.
@chibinekogirl101 you're right! how perfectly formed, just like those parasitic worms that exist purely to bury into kid's eyes and make them blind. Or how about the appendix, the laryngeal nerve, the optic nerve, photosynthesis, or the multitude of other highly inefficient biological processes that exist purely because evolution took one turn and it's hard to turn back... There is very little that is 'perfect' in this world...
@Neylonx Now, now, be gentle, she asked you not to be rude ... you're right that there is very little that is perfect in this world. Maybe tree blossom (reference to The Last Samurai film), maybe Krispy Kreme doughnuts, a beautiful sunset? According to the Bible, the world is fallen and so is mankind. But one day it will be restored "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" Revelation 21:4
@Neylonx Sorry if I offend you by referencing the Bible. But I'm afraid I will continue to quote it ... I am familiar with the verses you reference and I still believe that the Bible is the Word of God and God is Holy. Taken in isolation and out of context they are difficult to reconcile with other parts of the Bible that talk about God's love for us. I could expand upon the verses and give an explanation, but somehow I don't think you would be interested ...
@Neylonx Very good ! Somehow, I don't think the early church knew much text speak - although the Hebrew language is a bit similar, as there are no vowels. I will probably have some time this weekend to email you something on those verses - although I may not be able to satisfy you ...
"Do you not think that the way an Atheist views the world is at all affected by that belief?"
Since atheism isn't a belief, no. And atheists have very different world-views.
"When I see a beautiful sunset or the view from a mountain top it reminds me of the Creator God that I believe in - that is my world view." And atheists have different reactions and views on the universe, spirituality and other things. Atheism isn't a world-view.
@thomaseshuis How are dogs an example of evolution? There are about 450 breeds of dogs, they are all believed to have a common ancestor, which is something like the wolf. This is just adaptation and loss of information. As far as I'm aware, a dog has never given birth to a cat!
@rickytinks most breeds have been invented in the las 200 years through selection by humans, breeds are a relatively modern invent, and a proof of how evolution works.
@mklmcu I would say that humans have influenced the breeding of dogs (and other domestic animals) to produce dogs with certain characteristics. This is a demonstration of humans influencing the natural selection process - this doesn't in any way explain or provide an example of "molecules to man" evolution. The Genetics page within the "Consider the Evidence" section of my site talks about this. Also there is a link to a page on Information, which uses an example of dog hair length.
@rickytinks that's not how evolution works. Mutations that help chances of reproducing will have a better chance of passing on said mutations. we guided the breeding of dogs by finding traits or mutations that we found helpful and continued breeding them. what you seem to be implying is that the breeds of dogs were cause and effect I.E : want dog to fetch bird, dog evolved to be better at job. What is really happening is: dog A is better at fetching than dog B, breed A more than B.
@Carbonunit357 Mutations nearly always lead to a loss of information or function, and often lead to disease or disability. There are several different types of mutation (point, inversion, insertion, deletion, frame shift) but they all result in a net loss of information and sometimes function as well. Lee Spetner (Biophysicist) said "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
@rickytinks The claim that "Mutations nearly always lead to a loss of information or function" has already refuted. incidences of mutations that have added genetic information to a genome have been observed as early as 1991 (see lenski et al. 1991), and has continued to be observed in several more experiments. I can list them if you want me to, but chances are you'll just ignore them anyway and continue to support your refuted information.
@Carbonunit357 I'm aware of various papers by Lenski et al over the last 20 years, although I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically as "added genetic function". Lenski's experiments typically involve specific environmental conditions that make these mutations beneficial. However, the mutations frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing functions. If the environmental conditions change, the mutation usually becomes less beneficial and even detrimental. Continued ...
@Carbonunit357 Continued from other comment: In this way there is a benefit as a result of adaptation to the environment, but it becomes too specific when compared to the "wild" bacteria. So, I think that my statement holds that there is nearly always a loess of information or function. Have a look at the paper "Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria" on the Answers in Genesis website for more detail.
@thomaseshuis I didn't say that "kind" was a modern scientific term. A "kind" was originally a population of animal that could interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but couldn't breed with a different "kind". The Biblical word "kind" doesn't fit exactly with species, genus or family - but it is certainly at a much higher level than "species".
@TheAtheologian Sorry. There I go again ... My website is very basic, so it isn't very interactive, just mainly information and some videos. I didn't intend the YouTube comments to develop like this, but there have been a lot of comments about it all. Please send me an email - I'd like to hear what your issues are. Depends what you mean by a "Creationist" ! I don't like labels too much - I am a Christian, I believe God created the Universe, I don't believe in molecules to man evolution ...
@TheAtheologian I don't have all the answers - by a very long way. I still have lots of questions. But my life experience is that I believe that the God of the Bible is real, and that Jesus holds the key to life, the universe and everything. I understand that these statements carry a lot of "baggage" and that the established church has a lot to answer for over the centuries, but that was mankind messing up and losing touch with the Bible and how Jesus said we should live. Peace be with you.
@thomaseshuis My website simply tries to describe some different "world views" which includes what I refer to as "theistic evolution" and "atheistic evolution"; ie people that don't believe in God and believe in evolution, and people who do believe in God and evolution. Evolution is a hypothesis with many flaws - there are lots of quotes from eminent Scientists on my site that back this up. It isn't what I would describe as scientific, because it cannot be observed and proven by experiment.
@rickytinks "tries to describe some different "world views"" That might be, but neither atheism nor evolution is a world-view. Nor are the two related.
"t isn't what I would describe as scientific, because it cannot be observed and proven by experiment."
Please visit talkorigins (dot) net, because you're ill informed. Evolution can and has been observed in many species.
You can observe it in bacteria, to just name one example.
@thomaseshuis One definition of "world view" is "The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world". I think that this applies to atheism and to evolution, as they each are a specific perspective that leads to how an individual interprets stuff. I'm not saying that they are related - hence I refer to theists who believe in evolution and atheists who believe in evolution. I mainly do this to cover the different permutations of believing in God and evolution.
@rickytinks "One definition of "world view" is "The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world". I think that this applies to atheism " Then you think wrong.
I don't mean to offend, but I'm a bit tired of people mis-defining atheism.
@thomaseshuis I didn't define atheism, I referenced one definition of "world view" taken from an online dictionary. I simply said that atheism is a world view, which is a straight forward statement that I would imagine most people would agree with. Do you not think that the way an Atheist views the world is at all affected by that belief? When I see a beautiful sunset or the view from a mountain top it reminds me of the Creator God that I believe in - that is my world view.
@Playumaya I can't justify churches that have a lot of golden artefacts of course, the church I go to meets in a modest building that is functional rather than ornate. We're involved in a lot of social action, including work with marginalised adults, the elderly, youth and we're currently in the middle of a night shelter that provides food and somewhere to sleep for 15 homeless people each night for the 3 months over winter. We've managed to place at least 4 of them into housing so far.
@rickytinks That's really nice, but other religious organisations (and non-religious organisations) might be doing the same thing and I'm not required to give them money.
@Playumaya You're not required to give my church money either. You may know the famous quote "The only two certainties in life are death and taxes." by Mark Twain. Unfortunately you can't avoid either of them ...
@Playumaya I'm not making or denying your point. If the Government gives some funds to the Church of England and this indirectly comes from taxes, then I'm sure they are very grateful. You sound very resentful, I'm sorry that you fell that way, but it has nothing to do with me ...
I've looked at talkorigins before and noticed how bias it is - there are many claims of "absolute fact" when, at best, they are just hypothesis, often extrapolated from very little data. Natural selection and adaptation to the environment have been observed, but evolution from one species to an entirely different species has not. Bacteria produce bacteria, dogs produce dogs, chinchillas produce more small furry rodents. Animals reproduce "according to their kinds", as it says in the Bible.
@rickytinks "I've looked at talkorigins before and noticed how bias it is" And your site isn't?
"there are many claims of "absolute fact" when, at best, they are just hypothesis" Point them out and refute them in a mail to me.
"Natural selection and adaptation to the environment have been observed, but evolution from one species to an entirely different species has not." It has.
"Bacteria produce bacteria" Bacteria is not a species.
My website home page states that everyone has a bias - so I confess this up front and I describe my view point in the "about the author" pages ! It's a shame that the talkorigins people are not so open and honest, and they use the banner of science to push their beliefs. How can you categorically state that there has been evolution from one species to an entirely different one without any reference? And I don't know what your last point is for - I didn't say that bacteria are a species.
@rickytinks Ah, the micro vs macro argument, I have neat coloured text that addresses that, but basically when things can change in a small way that means with time (a 4 or so billion years) they can change in a big way.
@TheAtheologian That is a massive extrapolation! I'm a Chemical Engineer so I'm used to the scale-up of processes from pilot plants to full size facilities - it's very difficult with simple processes so isn't going to work with complex processes like living organisms. Also there's the Information Theory problem - reproduction doesn't produce new information, there is a loss of information. Have a look at the Biology and Genetics/Information pages of my site in the Consider the Evidence section
@rickytinks Ah, but you have examples of these kinds of changes in modern animals which would only be possible with a change in so called "information".
Generally speaking, simple processes en masse are complex processes.
From Pure Physics to chemistry, the 3 major forces and how they act upon chemicals, from chemistry to biology, and how massive cells have reactions with eachother due to chemicals. With this in mind, complex arises naturally with enough simple.
@TheAtheologian My basic understanding of genetics is that changes in generations of animals always involves a loss of information. I'm not an expert, but I did study some microbiology and biochemistry at University. Personally, I believe in "irreversible complexity", that it is incomprehensible to imagine how complex structures could have evolved by gradual changes over time: the complexity cannot be reversed back to simplicity. So, on this one the meerkats are wrong - it isn't "simples".
@TheAtheologian Darwin stated "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." (p187-190 Origin of the Species). That may have been true in 1859, but there was only a basic understanding of the eye and other complex structures such as the brain. Even within cells there are incredibly complex, highly interdependent processes.
@rickytinks First, I please define what you mean by information it is not at all clear, and generally speaking new effects are created by evolution, as you can demonstrate in a few thousand generations of bacteria.
Also, please don't tell me you said the eye? The eye, being currently one of the things with the most described evolutionary processes we have?
Also, remember 3.8 billion years? it took several hundred million years to develop multicellular organisms, so yeah, it's complex.
@TheAtheologian In terms of information, as I mentioned, have a look at the Biology and Genetics / Information pages of my site in the Consider the Evidence section. This includes some random examples of loss of genetic information such as dog hair length and ear lobe type.
I'm aware of the evolutionary timeline, but don't think that this hypothesis has any credible supporting evidence - even in hundreds of millions of generations of fruit fly studies. I'll respond separately about the eye ...
@TheAtheologian You say the eye is "the most described evolutionary process". The retina at the back of the human eye is less than one square inch yet contains over 137,000,000 light sensitive cells all connected to your brain. "It would take 100 years of Cray [super computer] time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second" Reverse Engineering the Brain, 1985. The eyes of animals are so different (eg owls, octopuses, mammals, etc). This isn't explained by evolution ...
Umm, actually it is. Maybe you should stop demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect, and start reading what people what people who actually know what they are talking about have to say?
@Tokeloshe123 "Umm, actually it is" isn't much of an argument. Interesting that you should mention the "Dunning Kruger effect". I've been asked to speak at an Energy Industry conference in Qatar and one of the topics I'm planning on covering is competence. I'll also be covering human error. Not sure what you mean by "what people what people" ...
@thomaseshuis Have a look at the page called "Observational Science" to see what I mean by saying that evolution is not scientific. There isn't much room to write in these comments - but if you send me an email with the statements that you think are flawed or incorrect I will review the content and adjust it if necessary. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am". God said "I Am". God "just is". Evolution "just isn't" ...
@Pr0fessah That is partly because I remove the hostile abusive comments that I sometimes get! Other than that, I've really enjoyed the discussion with people about God stuff ...
@Ashtiany2 I'm sorry that you don't like my website - the home page describes the fact that we ALL have a bias. I talk about my position within the "about the author" page, so it is clear where I stand. In the other pages I try to describe different issues "neutrally" and point out some of the gaps and issues with evolution. However, I realise that it is difficult for me to be completely neutral, as I have strong beliefs as a Christian.
@rickytinks We all have bias but the idea of science is that there is no bias whatsoever. there is complete objectivity. this is what you must have done, regardless of your beliefs. Where you stand is your opinion and should not influence the making of your website. It isn't a fair debate. Nonetheless, it is still a useful website, just the bias may be annoying for some.
@Ashtiany2 Thanks for the comments. I totally agree that the idea of science is that there is no bias - it should be totally objective. Unfortunately, sometimes people use the "name" of science to convey their subjective opinions as "factual" which is rather annoying and terribly misleading - it happens all the time.
@INukedMyFish Fair point !!! We have sometimes got a bit carried away - I guess passions run deep when it comes to God, Life, the Universe and Everything ...
I don't even know what to say to these blind believers who refuse to accept anything even if definite proof that God doesn't exist was shoved in their face. I don't know how the universe started, I don't know when existence began to exist, but I'm not going to randomly put my faith in a huge omnipotent old man in the clouds that somebody made up, wrote into a storybook which some fanatic began to believe and spread word about as if it were real. Answers will come, but I won't be making them up.
@herovsangelo Thanks for your comment - sorry if you are frustrated with my comments. I don't consider myself to be a blind believer. I'm a scientist, with a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering. My faith is based on evidence - it isn't blind. There is no such thing as "definite proof" that God exists or doesn't exist - hence the need for faith. There is a verse in the Bible that says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. Keep searching
@RacingDriver12 It's amazing how much emotional reaction there can be to issues of faith and God - there have been several people ranting at me ! Needless to say, I remove the worst of the swearing ...
@herovsangelo Thanks for the comment - how far can science go though? As soon as the questions start with "Why" then we're in the realms of philosophy / theology. Have a look at the "observational science" page of my website - it's under the "Consider the Evidence" section. Science can't "prove" everything - this is where faith comes in for the Christian AND for the Atheist. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Hebrews 11:1. Not a blind faith ...
@Brendan9895 Thanks for the comment. On the face of it that does seem like a massive contradiction. Not easy to answer in such a small space. One principle of the Bible is not to take verses out of context, especially if other verses offer a different perspective. The Law of the OT needs to be taken in its fullness. Not to kill is a guiding principle, one of the ten commandments. The Law in Leviticus was added, because God's people were struggling to understand right from wrong. Cont.
@rickytinks Chapter 20 of Leviticus includes all sorts of sins and several of them have the penalty of death. This is difficult to understand - why would God give these laws? One reason is that he is holy and wants his people to be holy, but this doesn't fully explain it. There is another verse in the Bible about sin and death, Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". So actually spiritual death is the consequence of all sin.
@chemicallingo You're right that it is not possible for any of us to live up to the standard of The Law of the Old Testament. In the New Testament Romans 3:23 says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". We all fall short and "the wages of sin is death". But we can have life - Jesus has paid the price for our sin, wiped away our debt. We can know forgiveness, hope, joy, peace and love.
It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Such a concept is outside the boundaries of logic. I find it somewhat pointless to discuss it's existence. All in all, live your life and if you believe in a God, good. Just don't shove it on other peoples' throats.
I for instance believe I am God. And you can't prove me wrong. For if I am God I can make you think I am a person.
Now go live your life, and go sacrifice me a sandwich while you're at it.
@RKramska Hail O Mighty One! You're right that it is impossible to prove the existence of God - it is illogical - check out the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy clip on my website - it is under "I do not think God exists" and then the "Dawkins Delusion" page. This is where faith comes in for the Christian AND for the Atheist. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Heb 11:1. If the Christian is wrong never mind, if the Atheist is wrong ...
@RKramska you're right that you can't prove or disprove God. BUT.....you can disprove religious gods.
i.e. if a book says it's completely true, but then we find that it's not true then we reach a contradiction. When enough of these are found, it's probably a good idea to throw it away and try again.
But a general idea of a god that we know nothing about....we can't say anything about it
@NotJames1 Thanks for the comment and you make a good point. We all have to make up our own mind. To test what we hear or read and decide what is truth. I like the clip from "A Few Good Men" which is one of my other videos "I want the truth". Can you handle the truth?
And if you're looking for more contradictions within the Bible I have lists of them!! :P for example: "God dwells in light" Tim 6:16 "God dwells in darkness" 1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
@Ciaran0Cathain Where did you get that list from? The pattern points to limiting God by our imagination. God is far greater than this. He is "omnipresent", which means he can be in more than one place at a time - for example, in light (the 1 Timothy ref relates to the Father in heaven) and in a dark cloud (the 1 Kings ref relates to the Holy Spirit dwelling in the temple). Then there is the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father isn't seen, Jesus and the Spirit are.
@Ciaran0Cathain An analogy for the Trinity is water, which has three forms (ice, steam and liquid water) each is separate and has different characteristics, but all three are H2O. The Exodus 31:17 verse doesn't say that God was tired - just that he rested (ie rested from the act of creation), so this doesn't contradict the Isaiah verse that says that God will not grow tired or weary. The next part of that verse is "and his understanding no one can fathom". Any more apparent contradictions?
@craigymusic Excellent ! The Lord of the Rings is one of my favourite books and the films are great. We all have a bias, none of us are completely objective. My starting point is the Bible - I believe that it makes sense of Life, the Universe and Everything. It is like a handbook for life. I find it to be true. The renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck said "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted its Biblical reference."
@rickytinks Have you ever read the bible. It doesn't make much sense of life or the universe. It's just a collection of rambling stories filled with entirely conflicting views and opinions that are often written terribly, often condoning violence, murder, rape and slavery, that contains no historical or scientific fact at all.
@Ciaran0Cathain Wow, where did that come from? I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say the Bible is full of "conflicting views". The Bible doesn't condone violence, it is based on love: Jesus said "Love the Lord your God ... and love your neighbour as yourself". Or putting it another way he said "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7 verse 12. The Bible is full of history - archaeology backs it up.
@JustAnotherHumanist No offence taken. God holds our lives in his hands - our days are numbered. In the OT God often brings judgement on people or towns or even whole civilisations. It may be uncomfortable, but the Bible says that God is our judge. We are in no position to fully understand how God works. Death and suffering is a hard one to grasp. My Dad died of cancer 4 years ago, my wife got cancer 2 years ago, a good friend was diagnosed with cancer a week ago. Yet I can say God is good
@JustAnotherHumanist It is a difficult issue to reconcile, but it is clear that Jesus rejects violence, for example: Turn the other cheek, love the Lord your God, love your neighbour, and the verse from Matthew chapter 7 verse 12 that I quoted elsewhere "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"
@JustAnotherHumanist Well, one of the issues is that according to the Bible God is Sovereign, he is in charge of the Universe that he created, we are not capable of fully understanding his ways. There are rules for us, but he doesn't live by the same rules, he can do want he chooses. Have a look at the book of Habakkuk in the Bible. He was a man who lived around the 7th century BC and complained to God about all the violence and oppression he saw around him.
@JustAnotherHumanist God created us with some sense of right and wrong, but our morality is quite subjective - our "sin" obscures our judgement. God is the only one that is objective and able to judge right from wrong. God provides us with the "Law" and other teaching such as the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7) to show how we should live. But "all have sinned and fall short", so we need God's help. Have a look at the "Lunatic, Liar, Lord" page of my website for a description of sin.
@JustAnotherHumanist Sounds like you're trying to blame God for mankind's "sinfulness", or as you put it lack of "morality". According to the Bible original creation was perfect - God looked at what he had made and said it was "very good". Adam and Eve were without sin until they rebelled and disobeyed God. Ultimately this is why mankind is so messed up, as we are all descended from them and are born into "unrighteousness". Have a look at my website page "The Fall of Mankind" for more info ...
@UnderlordZ I believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, the creator of all things and he can (and does) intervene in creation. Mankind's fault, our fault, is down to the choices we make - which goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. Ultimately the Bible says that God will intervene at the end of the world when he judges the living and the dead - we will be held accountable for our actions ...
@rickytinks I'm not trying to blame God for anything - I don't believe in him, after all. And now, we're at the fall. Reviewing the fall:
Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were without knowledge of Good and Evil. There was a fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God told them not to eat, or they would surely die. Snake tells Eve that this isn't true and that she should go for it, so she does, God pushes them out.
@JustAnotherHumanist The snake is a bit more devious than that. Eve misquotes God by adding to the rule that he gave - she adds "we must not touch it or we will die". The serpent picks up on this and says she will not die - which she wont by touching the tree.
@JustAnotherHumanist Not believing in God takes a lot of faith ... how do you think the Universe came about? What do you think happens when you die? Nothing? Pretty grim if this life which is full of suffering and pain is all there is to live for. Nietzsche argued that it was senseless to claim a moral meaning in a world without God. Do you have a sense of morality? Of right and wrong? Of fairness and justice? Most people do. So, using Nietzsche's reasoning, there must be a God.
How could Adam and Eve be expected to know that disobeying God was wrong without the knowledge of Good and Evil, which they gained by eating the fruit?
Why did God lie to them, saying they would die if they ate the fruit? I believe Adam lives to be, what, 900?
@JustAnotherHumanist Great questions! I don't know why God put the tree there, but I guess it was the opportunity for them to make a choice - would they obey God, their creator, or choose to do things their own way. They knew God created them, they talked with him directly, walking in the garden with him, they had a close relationship. So they would have known that God was "in charge". Just as a child knows that his parents are in charge - but they still rebel.
@JustAnotherHumanist I don't think that God lied to them. Adam lived to be 930 and then he died - so he did die. Adam and Eve would have lived forever if they hadn't eaten the fruit, but with that original sin the immediate consequence was that they became mortal and were liable to death.
@rickytinks Creation ex nihilo by an all-knowing being means that he is fully responsible for everything that happens in it. Or are you saying that all of what would occur if he created us the way he did wasn't known to him when he created us?
@GoblinKnightLeo I don't agree with your statement that God is fully responsible for everything that occurs within creation - God put us "in charge" of creation, to look after the earth, we are responsible for our own decisions and choices and for that we will be judged. God knows the future, which is called "precognition", this can co-exist with our free will (as I describe in reply to another comment about free will and God being omniscient).
@rickytinks What part of "omniscient" is troubling you? God is all-knowing. That means that, PRIOR to the moment of creation, he knew EXACTLY what would happen. God cannot be absolved of moral responsibility for his creation the way a mortal creator can, precisely because God can never claim "he didn't know THAT would happen". I don't know what free will would mean in this context, but since God could choose NOT to create, he must take FULL moral responsibility for ALL of creation.
@GoblinKnightLeo Certainly I would say that God is responsible for the creation of the universe, so on one level he is responsible for what goes on within creation. I think it is quite difficult for us to "put ourselves in God's position" and try to speculate about his choices. He does take the responsibility for solving the problem of sin - through the death of Jesus. I'm sorry if I can't give you a satisfactory answer within these brief comments. Email me if you want to discuss it further.
@rickytinks Except that prior to the moment of creation, he already knew who would accept Jesus and who would not. Meaning that he went ahead with a method of absolution that he knew a huge number of people would never accept. Meaning that he created those people knowing they were going to be damned.
He could have made something more convincing, he could have altered humanity so that more people would be wired to accept it, or any number of other options.
@rickytinks Which means that every single person in Hell is there because God made them into sinners. Remember, Christianity teaches that God KNOWS what will happen, not merely that he is a good guesser. He knows exactly what would convince people, and what wouldn't. He chose something that he knew a huge proportion of his Creation would not accept.
Because he is the Creator, it is, by definition, HIS FAULT that atheists reject him, because he created them knowing they would.
@GoblinKnightLeo This is a very difficult area, because we can never fully understand how God works. There is a range of Christian theology: Calvinists believe in predestination - that we have no free will, God chooses those who will be saved and go to heaven. Armenians are at the other end of the spectrum - they believe that we have total free will, and they diminish God's role in salvation. I struggle with both theologies - maybe the truth is in between cont.
If there is no free will, we have no role to play in our salvation, this doesn't seem fair - those that are condemned to Hell cannot do anything about it. At the same time, we cannot "earn" our salvation, we are not good enough. There is also the paradox of "irresistible grace", if we were offered salvation then no-one in their right mind would reject it, so does this mean we have no choice? I'm not sure where you are at, but you sound angry at God. Please email if you want to. Merry Christmas!
@parelpotje I know what you mean, but it has developed into a discussion about God stuff. I wasn't really expecting that, but when people are raising issues or asking questions I'm just trying to get across a Christian view point ...
@rickytinks There is no reconciling this. Because it's not merely that God picked up a lump of pre-existing clay and made it into man, knowing what attributes man would have. He is the CREATOR, which means that he CHOSE those attributes that men have. And he did this for each man. So the attributes of all men, including those of evil men, are directly attributable to God, because God could have at any time chosen different attributes for him, or for the world.
@GoblinKnightLeo Happy New Year ! As you say, it is a difficult issue to reconcile, and we seem to have quite different views on the issue. I would just come back to what the Bible says - that as individuals we will be held accountable for our lives, for the choices we have made, God will be our judge. I know that I'm a sinner (I am selfish, angry, envious, etc) but I also know forgiveness in Jesus.
@rickytinks You can't tell me that the Bible says something, but that your whole conception of God stands in flat contradiction to it, and tell me that it doesn't invalidate your position.
You cannot reconcile the idea of humans being judged with God being the supernatural creator with a supernatural viewpoint.
@GoblinKnightLeo Sorry, but I can reconcile God being our Judge and our Creator. Maybe the key to this is that he also provides the solution - the sacrifice. He offers to stand in the dock of the court room and take our punishment. Or we can try and justify our sin on our own. We each have a choice to make ...
@SmileForInsanity Thank you ! It makes a change from the hostile abusive comments I sometimes receive. Sorry for the delay, I've been a bit busy around Christmas and the New Year - or, the "holiday season" as you may refer to it !!
@rickytinks since he is all-knowing-powerful and he is in the past - present - future he already knew adam and eve would " rebel " so it is his own fault.
@Waustvanput This is all about "precognition" (God knowing the future) but us having free will. A bit like some scenes in The Matrix. The "Oracle", who is sort of analogous to God in that she knows something of the future, says to Neo "don't worry about the vase", then he says "what vase?" and turns and knocks it over. She says "would you have knocked it over if I hadn't said anything?". God allows us to make choices and sometimes mistakes, then helps us learn from them - like a good father
@TheBanile Because God gave them (and us) free will. There is a scene in The Matrix when Morpheus says to Neo "Do you believe in fate?" and he says no, because he believes he is in control of his own life. In the same way, I don't believe in "predestination", I think we can make choices. If Adam and Eve had no choice and they could only do exactly what God told them to do, then they would be nothing more than robots - pre-programmed to do things. God created us for relationship.
@rickytinks Makes a very strange sort of sense I suppose. Still don't really see why Adam and Eve would, or even could really, rebel against perfection. I mean, there's no motivation to do so...?
@TheBanile Good point. I guess it comes down to temptation and the desire to "be like God", wanting the power and wisdom of God. According to the Bible this is also what Satan wanted and he was cast out of heaven because of this desire.
@rickytinks I suppose. Still strikes as odd that God did nothing to stop his creations, even though, being god, he should and would have the foresight to know what would happen. :P Clearly, god is very poor at human psychology..
@TheBanile I believe that God knows our every thought - he knew us in our mother's womb and knows everything about us. I believe he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, Sovereign over his Universe. We try too much to define him and "put him in a box", thinking that we're "intelligent" and can comprehend God. There's a verse in the Bible in the book of Isaiah 55:8 that says "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.". Merry Christmas!
@rickytinks If you take the Law of Uncertainty into account, and accept that God is omnipresent, then we do not have free will. Should He know both the velocity and position of every particle in the universe, then He will know the precise outcome of everything, including the thought and acts of humans with a 100% accuracy, thereby giving us no free will. Similar to how, if you know the direction and velocity of every pool ball on a table, you know how which balls will go where.
@TehOrkyMan Thanks for the comment. This issue has prompted several similar comments and I've tried to describe "precognition" and "predestination". Personally I don't believe in predestination - this seems meaningless to me. If you are interested, have a look at the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible - it was written about 3,000 years ago and the author talks about whether there is any meaning to life ...
@rickytinks Sounds like you’re trying to shift the blame from God to God’s so-called perfect creation. “The Fall of Mankind” is God’s catch-22. God is supposed to be omniscient, thus God punished Adam and Eve (along with the rest of humanity) for an action that God knew they would take. That whole “freewill” thing is just a fallacy when factoring in an omniscient deity. If Adam and Eve actually had the freewill to choose, then God couldn’t be omniscient.
@HotblackDesiat042 There have been several comments along this theme of free will and precognition, compared to fate / predestination. I believe that God knows the future and therefore knows the choices we're going to make, but they are still our choices and we are therefore responsible for the consequences - just like in a court of law. I see God as our loving heavenly Father and just as a father sometimes allows his child to make mistakes to learn, so does God.
@rickytinks No offense, but I feel as though you’re not seeing the flaws in this story as I do.
Adam & Eve are part of God’s perfect creation, but granted them an ability to make mistakes which is perceived as an imperfection. So God create them perfectly imperfect? Is God contradictory?
Or did God create them to purposely fulfill exactly what he intended?
@rickytinks (cont.) God tests Adam & Eve with an illusion of choice. And I claim it is an illusion, because if God is omniscient, then he was fully aware that there was a necessity for the talking snake which he created for the purpose of deceiving Adam & Eve to produce the foreknown outcome to which he was privy. Therefore God caused them to make this “mistake” by rigging the test. In other words, God purposely set them up to fail. (cont.)>
@rickytinks (cont.) Even our courts of law are aware of this notion called entrapment.
Then somehow it was an act of benevolence that God held them (as well as all of humanity) accountable for this failure? In other words, this “loving father” essentially disowned his children and kicked them out of his house, forsaking his grandchildren, great grandchildren, and etcetera to boot. I’m sorry but this strikes me more as malevolence than benevolence. <(End)
@HotblackDesiat042 Thanks for the replies. This is a very difficult area, because we can never fully understand how God works. There is a range of Christian theology: Calvinists believe in predestination - that we have no free will, God chooses those who will be saved and go to heaven. Armenians are at the other end of the spectrum - they believe that we have total free will, and they diminish God's role in salvation. I struggle with both theologies - maybe the truth is inbetween (cont.)>
@rickytinks If there is no free will, we have no role to play in our salvation, then this doesn't seem fair - those that are condemned to Hell cannot do anything about it. But, at the same time, we cannot "earn" our salvation, as we are not good enough. There is also the paradox of "irresistible grace", if we were offered salvation then no-one in their right mind would reject it, so do this mean we have no choice? (cont.)>
@rickytinks You make a good point about entrapment. In a way you're right, as God did know that they would succumb to the temptation and sin. However, God is loving as well as being a judge, so he provided the solution, the redemption, the atonement - he paid the price for the sin in the death of Jesus. He doesn't disown us - according to the Bible he wants to have a relationship with us. No offence taken and I hope my attempt at answers don't offend you. Email me if you want to discuss more.
Even though it clearly had no idea how life arose, had no idea how the universe worked or how big it was. A fair bit of rationalising needs to be done before you'd "find it to be true"!
@GodTheHypothesis I find the Bible to be full of truth and that it makes sense of life. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life". Who do you say he is? He was either a Lunatic, Liar or Lord, a good teacher isn't an option. On that subject, Richard Dawkins is not a good teacher - he is quoted as saying "we now know 90% of everything" which is a crazy statement - we don't know what we don't know ... from @GodTheReality
Well people make sense of life with hundreds of different belief systems- the fact that people can "make things fit" their lives says nothing about the truth of them. Yes, I believe that was a CS Lewis quote- but he missed one option: "Legend". I think Jesus was probably just an influential philosopher and his followers ascribed the supernatural bits to him to help gain followers. Where did Dawkins say that then? I've read most of his books and sure didn't read anything that mad!
@GodTheHypothesis Everyone needs to make their own mind up of course. I believe that the most important question to be answered is "Who do you say Jesus is?". He claimed to be God. He either knew he wasn't (Liar), didn't know he wasn't (Lunatic) or he was (Lord). Logically they are the only options, as CS Lewis points out. In any case, if his followers made up loads of stuff, why were they prepared to die for lies, as many of them did? The quote is from a TV interview he did.
Did you not read my message? I just pointed out that those weren't the only 3 options, CS Lewis missed one. I think it's most likely that he never claimed to be God or did any miracles but his followers attributed this to him because they were so devoted to him and wanted to spread their devotion.
@GodTheHypothesis The Bible records in manyplaces that Jesus was God. Thomas said "My Lord and my God". Peter said "you are the Christ". If Peter and the other disciples made a lot of it up, how come they were prepared to die for the lies? When arrested and confronted about being followers of Jesus they could have just denied it all and walked free. Peter was crucified upside down for his belief. Several other disciples were also either crucified or stoned to death.
Well the only evidence that ANY of that ever happened is the 4 gospels- which were written decades later by anonymous authors. I didn't say I thought the disciples made it all up- I think the actual authors just made the stories fit the conclusion that he was God, who knows what the actual disciples said/thought.
@GodTheHypothesis The gospel of John is widely believed to have been written by the disciple of that name. Matthew probably was - if not, then he was certainly involved in producing it. Luke was a doctor who wrote in 80AD. Mark was a friend of the disciple Peter and wrote about 40-75AD. The latest date would be about 45 years after Jesus died. So this is the equivalent of someone writing now about England winning the World Cup in 1966. There would be people still alive who met Jesus.
well if their is a god, i highly doubt he has nothing to say about the evil going on in the world and evolution is not hundred percent proven, the theory of it is largely based on faith just as much as any religion. also, i've never heard any man speak with as much wisdom about life than jesus and the words he spoke are really needed in the world right now if you ask me and the bible is too wise and complex for someone uneducated to just make it up & this world might change but god never changes
piaybackjunkie17 3 weeks ago
@piaybackjunkie17 Thanks for your comments. I agree with you about evolution - it takes a lot of faith to believe in it ... Also agree with your comment about Jesus - that his wisdom is incomparable. "Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance." Jude 1:2
rickytinks 2 weeks ago
@rickytinks You're welcome, mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance too! :) Ignore all the people who don't agree with you, if you believe something is true then that's all that matters.x
piaybackjunkie17 2 weeks ago
If god didn't create the world...how is it trees take in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen...when we take in oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide. a little TOO perfect prahaps? (i'm christian, but i support all religions so please don't be rude ^.^)
chibinekogirl101 1 month ago
@chibinekogirl101 Because an animal which needed liquid iron in its lungs every few seconds wouldn't have lived long enough to invent religion.
Playumaya 1 month ago 3
@Playumaya I'm sure it would have survived somehow on Star Trek, in fact, didn't James T Kirk have an affair with an animal of that description? I'm picking up that you are angry about "religion" and you're right to be, so am I, and so was Jesus - he repeatedly rebuked the established church leaders (the Pharisees and Sadducees). The "church" has made many mistakes over the centuries and continues to do so, but there are genuine Christians out there, that live by faith not hypocrisy ...
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@rickytinks I have.. no idea what you're talking about. I never mentioned an animal, let alone one Kirk had sex with.
Playumaya 4 weeks ago
@Playumaya You mentioned an animal that needed liquid iron in its lungs, which made me think of some sort of weird alien from Star Trek ...
rickytinks 3 weeks ago
@chibinekogirl101 I was about to politely splutter about your comical "a little TOO perfect prahaps(sic)?" but then I saw @Playumaya 's response. Can't top that. I bet the more educated (or those willing to look to those who are knowledgeable and qualified) trees have the same exasperating conversations when we're not looking.
WhyDoIBotherAtAll 1 month ago
@WhyDoIBotherAtAll Maybe we should ask Prince Charles? He might have heard something on the grapevine, or the oak tree, or the Dutch elm ...
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@chibinekogirl101 Trees are plants and we are animals. There was a point in Earth's history when neither animals or plants existed, but other, simpler forms of life did exist. On a cellular level, animals and plants aren't that different.
Zoopedia 1 month ago
@Zoopedia I agree with your first sentence! Although, as a Christian, I would say that we are much more than just animals, as I believe that we have a spirit. How do you know that there was a point when neither animals or plants existed? What are these simpler forms of life? I have to disagree with your last sentence - animals and plants are very different on a cellular level. The internal workings of a cell are amazingly complex.
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@rickytinks There are organisms that aren't plants and animals still alive today..
Fungi, Archea, bacteria, amoeba's etc
Zoopedia 4 weeks ago
@chibinekogirl101 you're right! how perfectly formed, just like those parasitic worms that exist purely to bury into kid's eyes and make them blind. Or how about the appendix, the laryngeal nerve, the optic nerve, photosynthesis, or the multitude of other highly inefficient biological processes that exist purely because evolution took one turn and it's hard to turn back... There is very little that is 'perfect' in this world...
Neylonx 1 month ago
@Neylonx Now, now, be gentle, she asked you not to be rude ... you're right that there is very little that is perfect in this world. Maybe tree blossom (reference to The Last Samurai film), maybe Krispy Kreme doughnuts, a beautiful sunset? According to the Bible, the world is fallen and so is mankind. But one day it will be restored "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" Revelation 21:4
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@rickytinks i recommend you read 1 Timothy 2:12, Romans 1:27, Ephesians 5:22-24, Judges 21:10-24, Psalm 137:9 and 1 Peter 2:18.
your precious book is either not the word of god, or your god is ethically corrupt. Either way stop quoting the damn thing
Neylonx 4 weeks ago
@Neylonx Sorry if I offend you by referencing the Bible. But I'm afraid I will continue to quote it ... I am familiar with the verses you reference and I still believe that the Bible is the Word of God and God is Holy. Taken in isolation and out of context they are difficult to reconcile with other parts of the Bible that talk about God's love for us. I could expand upon the verses and give an explanation, but somehow I don't think you would be interested ...
rickytinks 3 weeks ago
@rickytinks the only way some of them could be given a better context is if the next paragraph consisted of something like 'LOL just kidding XD'
go ahead, i'd like to hear the explanation of the timothy, peter and ephesians' ones
Neylonx 3 weeks ago
@Neylonx Very good ! Somehow, I don't think the early church knew much text speak - although the Hebrew language is a bit similar, as there are no vowels. I will probably have some time this weekend to email you something on those verses - although I may not be able to satisfy you ...
rickytinks 3 weeks ago
"Do you not think that the way an Atheist views the world is at all affected by that belief?"
Since atheism isn't a belief, no. And atheists have very different world-views.
"When I see a beautiful sunset or the view from a mountain top it reminds me of the Creator God that I believe in - that is my world view." And atheists have different reactions and views on the universe, spirituality and other things. Atheism isn't a world-view.
have you received my PM.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
"dogs produce dogs" Dogs are an example of evolution not a counter argument.
"Animals reproduce "according to their kinds"
'Kind' isn't a scientific term.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago 13
@thomaseshuis How are dogs an example of evolution? There are about 450 breeds of dogs, they are all believed to have a common ancestor, which is something like the wolf. This is just adaptation and loss of information. As far as I'm aware, a dog has never given birth to a cat!
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks most breeds have been invented in the las 200 years through selection by humans, breeds are a relatively modern invent, and a proof of how evolution works.
mklmcu 1 month ago
@mklmcu I would say that humans have influenced the breeding of dogs (and other domestic animals) to produce dogs with certain characteristics. This is a demonstration of humans influencing the natural selection process - this doesn't in any way explain or provide an example of "molecules to man" evolution. The Genetics page within the "Consider the Evidence" section of my site talks about this. Also there is a link to a page on Information, which uses an example of dog hair length.
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@rickytinks Seeing cats are cousins to dogs, a dog giving birth to a cat would disprove evolution
antipyrene 1 month ago
@rickytinks You are correct - a dog has never given birth to a cat
skylandmountain 1 month ago
@rickytinks that's not how evolution works. Mutations that help chances of reproducing will have a better chance of passing on said mutations. we guided the breeding of dogs by finding traits or mutations that we found helpful and continued breeding them. what you seem to be implying is that the breeds of dogs were cause and effect I.E : want dog to fetch bird, dog evolved to be better at job. What is really happening is: dog A is better at fetching than dog B, breed A more than B.
Carbonunit357 1 month ago
@Carbonunit357 Mutations nearly always lead to a loss of information or function, and often lead to disease or disability. There are several different types of mutation (point, inversion, insertion, deletion, frame shift) but they all result in a net loss of information and sometimes function as well. Lee Spetner (Biophysicist) said "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@rickytinks The claim that "Mutations nearly always lead to a loss of information or function" has already refuted. incidences of mutations that have added genetic information to a genome have been observed as early as 1991 (see lenski et al. 1991), and has continued to be observed in several more experiments. I can list them if you want me to, but chances are you'll just ignore them anyway and continue to support your refuted information.
Carbonunit357 3 weeks ago
@Carbonunit357 I'm aware of various papers by Lenski et al over the last 20 years, although I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically as "added genetic function". Lenski's experiments typically involve specific environmental conditions that make these mutations beneficial. However, the mutations frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing functions. If the environmental conditions change, the mutation usually becomes less beneficial and even detrimental. Continued ...
rickytinks 2 weeks ago
@Carbonunit357 Continued from other comment: In this way there is a benefit as a result of adaptation to the environment, but it becomes too specific when compared to the "wild" bacteria. So, I think that my statement holds that there is nearly always a loess of information or function. Have a look at the paper "Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria" on the Answers in Genesis website for more detail.
rickytinks 2 weeks ago
@thomaseshuis I didn't say that "kind" was a modern scientific term. A "kind" was originally a population of animal that could interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but couldn't breed with a different "kind". The Biblical word "kind" doesn't fit exactly with species, genus or family - but it is certainly at a much higher level than "species".
rickytinks 1 month ago
I'd like it if your website had a comments section, because I really feel an itch to argue after only having read the atheist part.
Also, are you a creationist? Creationists aren't supposed to be polite and understanding, you're messing with my worldview!
TheAtheologian 1 month ago
@TheAtheologian Sorry. There I go again ... My website is very basic, so it isn't very interactive, just mainly information and some videos. I didn't intend the YouTube comments to develop like this, but there have been a lot of comments about it all. Please send me an email - I'd like to hear what your issues are. Depends what you mean by a "Creationist" ! I don't like labels too much - I am a Christian, I believe God created the Universe, I don't believe in molecules to man evolution ...
rickytinks 1 month ago
@TheAtheologian I don't have all the answers - by a very long way. I still have lots of questions. But my life experience is that I believe that the God of the Bible is real, and that Jesus holds the key to life, the universe and everything. I understand that these statements carry a lot of "baggage" and that the established church has a lot to answer for over the centuries, but that was mankind messing up and losing touch with the Bible and how Jesus said we should live. Peace be with you.
rickytinks 1 month ago
Just a tip: evolution is not 'atheistic'. It just is. And there are many other flawed representations of atheism, evolution and other topics.
I do not mean to attack you, but some of your statements are factually incorrect.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis My website simply tries to describe some different "world views" which includes what I refer to as "theistic evolution" and "atheistic evolution"; ie people that don't believe in God and believe in evolution, and people who do believe in God and evolution. Evolution is a hypothesis with many flaws - there are lots of quotes from eminent Scientists on my site that back this up. It isn't what I would describe as scientific, because it cannot be observed and proven by experiment.
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks "tries to describe some different "world views"" That might be, but neither atheism nor evolution is a world-view. Nor are the two related.
"t isn't what I would describe as scientific, because it cannot be observed and proven by experiment."
Please visit talkorigins (dot) net, because you're ill informed. Evolution can and has been observed in many species.
You can observe it in bacteria, to just name one example.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis One definition of "world view" is "The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world". I think that this applies to atheism and to evolution, as they each are a specific perspective that leads to how an individual interprets stuff. I'm not saying that they are related - hence I refer to theists who believe in evolution and atheists who believe in evolution. I mainly do this to cover the different permutations of believing in God and evolution.
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks "One definition of "world view" is "The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world". I think that this applies to atheism " Then you think wrong.
I don't mean to offend, but I'm a bit tired of people mis-defining atheism.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis I didn't define atheism, I referenced one definition of "world view" taken from an online dictionary. I simply said that atheism is a world view, which is a straight forward statement that I would imagine most people would agree with. Do you not think that the way an Atheist views the world is at all affected by that belief? When I see a beautiful sunset or the view from a mountain top it reminds me of the Creator God that I believe in - that is my world view.
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks And that's very lovely, just stop making me pay taxes for your gold.
Playumaya 1 month ago
@Playumaya I can't justify churches that have a lot of golden artefacts of course, the church I go to meets in a modest building that is functional rather than ornate. We're involved in a lot of social action, including work with marginalised adults, the elderly, youth and we're currently in the middle of a night shelter that provides food and somewhere to sleep for 15 homeless people each night for the 3 months over winter. We've managed to place at least 4 of them into housing so far.
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@rickytinks That's really nice, but other religious organisations (and non-religious organisations) might be doing the same thing and I'm not required to give them money.
Playumaya 4 weeks ago
@Playumaya You're not required to give my church money either. You may know the famous quote "The only two certainties in life are death and taxes." by Mark Twain. Unfortunately you can't avoid either of them ...
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@rickytinks And I am giving the church money through taxes, so yes, thank you for making my point.
Playumaya 4 weeks ago
@Playumaya I'm not making or denying your point. If the Government gives some funds to the Church of England and this indirectly comes from taxes, then I'm sure they are very grateful. You sound very resentful, I'm sorry that you fell that way, but it has nothing to do with me ...
rickytinks 3 weeks ago
@rickytinks Well, I hate being the one to tell you this, my friend, but we don't decide who gets tax money by how grateful they would be for it.
Playumaya 3 weeks ago
@Playumaya Too true. Have you considered lobbying your local MP? Failing that there is always therapy ... warm regards
rickytinks 3 weeks ago
I've looked at talkorigins before and noticed how bias it is - there are many claims of "absolute fact" when, at best, they are just hypothesis, often extrapolated from very little data. Natural selection and adaptation to the environment have been observed, but evolution from one species to an entirely different species has not. Bacteria produce bacteria, dogs produce dogs, chinchillas produce more small furry rodents. Animals reproduce "according to their kinds", as it says in the Bible.
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks "I've looked at talkorigins before and noticed how bias it is" And your site isn't?
"there are many claims of "absolute fact" when, at best, they are just hypothesis" Point them out and refute them in a mail to me.
"Natural selection and adaptation to the environment have been observed, but evolution from one species to an entirely different species has not." It has.
"Bacteria produce bacteria" Bacteria is not a species.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
My website home page states that everyone has a bias - so I confess this up front and I describe my view point in the "about the author" pages ! It's a shame that the talkorigins people are not so open and honest, and they use the banner of science to push their beliefs. How can you categorically state that there has been evolution from one species to an entirely different one without any reference? And I don't know what your last point is for - I didn't say that bacteria are a species.
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks Ah, the micro vs macro argument, I have neat coloured text that addresses that, but basically when things can change in a small way that means with time (a 4 or so billion years) they can change in a big way.
TheAtheologian 1 month ago
@TheAtheologian That is a massive extrapolation! I'm a Chemical Engineer so I'm used to the scale-up of processes from pilot plants to full size facilities - it's very difficult with simple processes so isn't going to work with complex processes like living organisms. Also there's the Information Theory problem - reproduction doesn't produce new information, there is a loss of information. Have a look at the Biology and Genetics/Information pages of my site in the Consider the Evidence section
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@rickytinks Ah, but you have examples of these kinds of changes in modern animals which would only be possible with a change in so called "information".
Generally speaking, simple processes en masse are complex processes.
From Pure Physics to chemistry, the 3 major forces and how they act upon chemicals, from chemistry to biology, and how massive cells have reactions with eachother due to chemicals. With this in mind, complex arises naturally with enough simple.
TheAtheologian 4 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian My basic understanding of genetics is that changes in generations of animals always involves a loss of information. I'm not an expert, but I did study some microbiology and biochemistry at University. Personally, I believe in "irreversible complexity", that it is incomprehensible to imagine how complex structures could have evolved by gradual changes over time: the complexity cannot be reversed back to simplicity. So, on this one the meerkats are wrong - it isn't "simples".
rickytinks 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian Darwin stated "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." (p187-190 Origin of the Species). That may have been true in 1859, but there was only a basic understanding of the eye and other complex structures such as the brain. Even within cells there are incredibly complex, highly interdependent processes.
rickytinks 3 weeks ago
@rickytinks First, I please define what you mean by information it is not at all clear, and generally speaking new effects are created by evolution, as you can demonstrate in a few thousand generations of bacteria.
Also, please don't tell me you said the eye? The eye, being currently one of the things with the most described evolutionary processes we have?
Also, remember 3.8 billion years? it took several hundred million years to develop multicellular organisms, so yeah, it's complex.
TheAtheologian 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian In terms of information, as I mentioned, have a look at the Biology and Genetics / Information pages of my site in the Consider the Evidence section. This includes some random examples of loss of genetic information such as dog hair length and ear lobe type.
I'm aware of the evolutionary timeline, but don't think that this hypothesis has any credible supporting evidence - even in hundreds of millions of generations of fruit fly studies. I'll respond separately about the eye ...
rickytinks 2 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian You say the eye is "the most described evolutionary process". The retina at the back of the human eye is less than one square inch yet contains over 137,000,000 light sensitive cells all connected to your brain. "It would take 100 years of Cray [super computer] time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second" Reverse Engineering the Brain, 1985. The eyes of animals are so different (eg owls, octopuses, mammals, etc). This isn't explained by evolution ...
rickytinks 2 weeks ago
@rickytinks
Umm, actually it is. Maybe you should stop demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect, and start reading what people what people who actually know what they are talking about have to say?
Tokeloshe123 3 days ago
@Tokeloshe123 "Umm, actually it is" isn't much of an argument. Interesting that you should mention the "Dunning Kruger effect". I've been asked to speak at an Energy Industry conference in Qatar and one of the topics I'm planning on covering is competence. I'll also be covering human error. Not sure what you mean by "what people what people" ...
rickytinks 1 day ago
@thomaseshuis Have a look at the page called "Observational Science" to see what I mean by saying that evolution is not scientific. There isn't much room to write in these comments - but if you send me an email with the statements that you think are flawed or incorrect I will review the content and adjust it if necessary. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am". God said "I Am". God "just is". Evolution "just isn't" ...
rickytinks 1 month ago
It's really nice that this page is actually making reasonable, non-hostile arguments.
+1 internets to you all
Pr0fessah 1 month ago
@Pr0fessah That is partly because I remove the hostile abusive comments that I sometimes get! Other than that, I've really enjoyed the discussion with people about God stuff ...
rickytinks 1 month ago
To the uploader of this video, I don't like your website, it's bias towards God and Creationism.
Ashtiany2 1 month ago
@Ashtiany2 I'm sorry that you don't like my website - the home page describes the fact that we ALL have a bias. I talk about my position within the "about the author" page, so it is clear where I stand. In the other pages I try to describe different issues "neutrally" and point out some of the gaps and issues with evolution. However, I realise that it is difficult for me to be completely neutral, as I have strong beliefs as a Christian.
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks We all have bias but the idea of science is that there is no bias whatsoever. there is complete objectivity. this is what you must have done, regardless of your beliefs. Where you stand is your opinion and should not influence the making of your website. It isn't a fair debate. Nonetheless, it is still a useful website, just the bias may be annoying for some.
Ashtiany2 1 month ago
@Ashtiany2 Thanks for the comments. I totally agree that the idea of science is that there is no bias - it should be totally objective. Unfortunately, sometimes people use the "name" of science to convey their subjective opinions as "factual" which is rather annoying and terribly misleading - it happens all the time.
rickytinks 1 month ago
hey! rickytinks! GoblinKnightLeo! Calm down and enjoy the comedy.
INukedMyFish 1 month ago
@INukedMyFish Fair point !!! We have sometimes got a bit carried away - I guess passions run deep when it comes to God, Life, the Universe and Everything ...
rickytinks 1 month ago
I don't even know what to say to these blind believers who refuse to accept anything even if definite proof that God doesn't exist was shoved in their face. I don't know how the universe started, I don't know when existence began to exist, but I'm not going to randomly put my faith in a huge omnipotent old man in the clouds that somebody made up, wrote into a storybook which some fanatic began to believe and spread word about as if it were real. Answers will come, but I won't be making them up.
herovsangelo 2 months ago
@herovsangelo Thanks for your comment - sorry if you are frustrated with my comments. I don't consider myself to be a blind believer. I'm a scientist, with a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering. My faith is based on evidence - it isn't blind. There is no such thing as "definite proof" that God exists or doesn't exist - hence the need for faith. There is a verse in the Bible that says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. Keep searching
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
i love how everyone is just argueing over their belive
RacingDriver12 2 months ago
@RacingDriver12 It's amazing how much emotional reaction there can be to issues of faith and God - there have been several people ranting at me ! Needless to say, I remove the worst of the swearing ...
rickytinks 2 months ago
Just because science hasn't found out everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with any damn fairy tale you fancy the most.
Same rule applies to belief in God.
herovsangelo 2 months ago
@herovsangelo Thanks for the comment - how far can science go though? As soon as the questions start with "Why" then we're in the realms of philosophy / theology. Have a look at the "observational science" page of my website - it's under the "Consider the Evidence" section. Science can't "prove" everything - this is where faith comes in for the Christian AND for the Atheist. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Hebrews 11:1. Not a blind faith ...
rickytinks 2 months ago
Though shalt not kill, and then a few pages later it tells you to stone homosexuals to death..good going christians, want any more contradictions?
Brendan9895 2 months ago 6
@Brendan9895 Thanks for the comment. On the face of it that does seem like a massive contradiction. Not easy to answer in such a small space. One principle of the Bible is not to take verses out of context, especially if other verses offer a different perspective. The Law of the OT needs to be taken in its fullness. Not to kill is a guiding principle, one of the ten commandments. The Law in Leviticus was added, because God's people were struggling to understand right from wrong. Cont.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks Chapter 20 of Leviticus includes all sorts of sins and several of them have the penalty of death. This is difficult to understand - why would God give these laws? One reason is that he is holy and wants his people to be holy, but this doesn't fully explain it. There is another verse in the Bible about sin and death, Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". So actually spiritual death is the consequence of all sin.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@Brendan9895 consider: the ten commandments are not actually intended to be followed only perfection to be aimed toward
however, there is a question of whether that was the original intention or ad hoc saving by theologians
chemicallingo 1 month ago
@chemicallingo You're right that it is not possible for any of us to live up to the standard of The Law of the Old Testament. In the New Testament Romans 3:23 says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". We all fall short and "the wages of sin is death". But we can have life - Jesus has paid the price for our sin, wiped away our debt. We can know forgiveness, hope, joy, peace and love.
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
I just love Dara :)
It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Such a concept is outside the boundaries of logic. I find it somewhat pointless to discuss it's existence. All in all, live your life and if you believe in a God, good. Just don't shove it on other peoples' throats.
I for instance believe I am God. And you can't prove me wrong. For if I am God I can make you think I am a person.
Now go live your life, and go sacrifice me a sandwich while you're at it.
RKramska 3 months ago 3
@RKramska Hail O Mighty One! You're right that it is impossible to prove the existence of God - it is illogical - check out the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy clip on my website - it is under "I do not think God exists" and then the "Dawkins Delusion" page. This is where faith comes in for the Christian AND for the Atheist. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Heb 11:1. If the Christian is wrong never mind, if the Atheist is wrong ...
rickytinks 2 months ago
@RKramska you're right that you can't prove or disprove God. BUT.....you can disprove religious gods.
i.e. if a book says it's completely true, but then we find that it's not true then we reach a contradiction. When enough of these are found, it's probably a good idea to throw it away and try again.
But a general idea of a god that we know nothing about....we can't say anything about it
NotJames1 2 months ago
@NotJames1 Thanks for the comment and you make a good point. We all have to make up our own mind. To test what we hear or read and decide what is truth. I like the clip from "A Few Good Men" which is one of my other videos "I want the truth". Can you handle the truth?
rickytinks 2 months ago
1:37
Every post on every Dara O'Briain video should have the word "feckin'!" somewhere in it.
icarus313 3 months ago
@icarus313 Thanks for the comment - and sorry I accidentally removed your other comment when you quoted Dara ... "ah yes the BOIBLE!"
rickytinks 3 months ago
And if you're looking for more contradictions within the Bible I have lists of them!! :P for example: "God dwells in light" Tim 6:16 "God dwells in darkness" 1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16 God is tired and rests Ex 31:17 God is never tired and never rests Is 40:28
Ciaran0Cathain 3 months ago
@Ciaran0Cathain Where did you get that list from? The pattern points to limiting God by our imagination. God is far greater than this. He is "omnipresent", which means he can be in more than one place at a time - for example, in light (the 1 Timothy ref relates to the Father in heaven) and in a dark cloud (the 1 Kings ref relates to the Holy Spirit dwelling in the temple). Then there is the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father isn't seen, Jesus and the Spirit are.
rickytinks 3 months ago
@Ciaran0Cathain An analogy for the Trinity is water, which has three forms (ice, steam and liquid water) each is separate and has different characteristics, but all three are H2O. The Exodus 31:17 verse doesn't say that God was tired - just that he rested (ie rested from the act of creation), so this doesn't contradict the Isaiah verse that says that God will not grow tired or weary. The next part of that verse is "and his understanding no one can fathom". Any more apparent contradictions?
rickytinks 3 months ago
3 blind monkeys disliked this video
Spencerthedug 3 months ago 2
anybody else 'have a look at themselves' when he asked, and then felt crummy when he finished the line...?
Papped1710 3 months ago
Quoting the bible to prove it all happened is like quoting The Lord Of The Rings to prove Orcs existed.
craigymusic 3 months ago 58
@craigymusic Excellent ! The Lord of the Rings is one of my favourite books and the films are great. We all have a bias, none of us are completely objective. My starting point is the Bible - I believe that it makes sense of Life, the Universe and Everything. It is like a handbook for life. I find it to be true. The renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck said "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted its Biblical reference."
rickytinks 3 months ago
@rickytinks Have you ever read the bible. It doesn't make much sense of life or the universe. It's just a collection of rambling stories filled with entirely conflicting views and opinions that are often written terribly, often condoning violence, murder, rape and slavery, that contains no historical or scientific fact at all.
Ciaran0Cathain 3 months ago 12
@Ciaran0Cathain Wow, where did that come from? I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say the Bible is full of "conflicting views". The Bible doesn't condone violence, it is based on love: Jesus said "Love the Lord your God ... and love your neighbour as yourself". Or putting it another way he said "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7 verse 12. The Bible is full of history - archaeology backs it up.
rickytinks 3 months ago
@rickytinks No offense man, but if you think the Bible doesn't support violence, you really need to read your Bible. Check out the Old Testament.
JustAnotherHumanist 3 months ago
@JustAnotherHumanist No offence taken. God holds our lives in his hands - our days are numbered. In the OT God often brings judgement on people or towns or even whole civilisations. It may be uncomfortable, but the Bible says that God is our judge. We are in no position to fully understand how God works. Death and suffering is a hard one to grasp. My Dad died of cancer 4 years ago, my wife got cancer 2 years ago, a good friend was diagnosed with cancer a week ago. Yet I can say God is good
rickytinks 3 months ago
@rickytinks Well, yeah, but the point is, violence isn't rejected by the Bible, it's supported in many places, and that's a contradiction.
JustAnotherHumanist 3 months ago
@JustAnotherHumanist It is a difficult issue to reconcile, but it is clear that Jesus rejects violence, for example: Turn the other cheek, love the Lord your God, love your neighbour, and the verse from Matthew chapter 7 verse 12 that I quoted elsewhere "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks So how do you reconcile that with God ordering violence in the Old Testament?
JustAnotherHumanist 2 months ago
@JustAnotherHumanist Well, one of the issues is that according to the Bible God is Sovereign, he is in charge of the Universe that he created, we are not capable of fully understanding his ways. There are rules for us, but he doesn't live by the same rules, he can do want he chooses. Have a look at the book of Habakkuk in the Bible. He was a man who lived around the 7th century BC and complained to God about all the violence and oppression he saw around him.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks Doesn't our morality come from God, according to Christianity?
JustAnotherHumanist 2 months ago
@JustAnotherHumanist God created us with some sense of right and wrong, but our morality is quite subjective - our "sin" obscures our judgement. God is the only one that is objective and able to judge right from wrong. God provides us with the "Law" and other teaching such as the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7) to show how we should live. But "all have sinned and fall short", so we need God's help. Have a look at the "Lunatic, Liar, Lord" page of my website for a description of sin.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks So, why is God so bad at creating moral humans?
JustAnotherHumanist 2 months ago 3
@JustAnotherHumanist Sounds like you're trying to blame God for mankind's "sinfulness", or as you put it lack of "morality". According to the Bible original creation was perfect - God looked at what he had made and said it was "very good". Adam and Eve were without sin until they rebelled and disobeyed God. Ultimately this is why mankind is so messed up, as we are all descended from them and are born into "unrighteousness". Have a look at my website page "The Fall of Mankind" for more info ...
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks So it's mankinds' fault that an all-powerful all-knowing creator of all things, can't CHANGE something it doesn't like?
UnderlordZ 2 months ago
@UnderlordZ I believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, the creator of all things and he can (and does) intervene in creation. Mankind's fault, our fault, is down to the choices we make - which goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. Ultimately the Bible says that God will intervene at the end of the world when he judges the living and the dead - we will be held accountable for our actions ...
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks I'm not trying to blame God for anything - I don't believe in him, after all. And now, we're at the fall. Reviewing the fall:
Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were without knowledge of Good and Evil. There was a fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God told them not to eat, or they would surely die. Snake tells Eve that this isn't true and that she should go for it, so she does, God pushes them out.
JustAnotherHumanist 2 months ago
@JustAnotherHumanist The snake is a bit more devious than that. Eve misquotes God by adding to the rule that he gave - she adds "we must not touch it or we will die". The serpent picks up on this and says she will not die - which she wont by touching the tree.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@JustAnotherHumanist Not believing in God takes a lot of faith ... how do you think the Universe came about? What do you think happens when you die? Nothing? Pretty grim if this life which is full of suffering and pain is all there is to live for. Nietzsche argued that it was senseless to claim a moral meaning in a world without God. Do you have a sense of morality? Of right and wrong? Of fairness and justice? Most people do. So, using Nietzsche's reasoning, there must be a God.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks A few questions about the fall-
Why did God put the tree there to begin with?
How could Adam and Eve be expected to know that disobeying God was wrong without the knowledge of Good and Evil, which they gained by eating the fruit?
Why did God lie to them, saying they would die if they ate the fruit? I believe Adam lives to be, what, 900?
JustAnotherHumanist 2 months ago
@JustAnotherHumanist Great questions! I don't know why God put the tree there, but I guess it was the opportunity for them to make a choice - would they obey God, their creator, or choose to do things their own way. They knew God created them, they talked with him directly, walking in the garden with him, they had a close relationship. So they would have known that God was "in charge". Just as a child knows that his parents are in charge - but they still rebel.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@JustAnotherHumanist I don't think that God lied to them. Adam lived to be 930 and then he died - so he did die. Adam and Eve would have lived forever if they hadn't eaten the fruit, but with that original sin the immediate consequence was that they became mortal and were liable to death.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks Creation ex nihilo by an all-knowing being means that he is fully responsible for everything that happens in it. Or are you saying that all of what would occur if he created us the way he did wasn't known to him when he created us?
GoblinKnightLeo 2 months ago
@GoblinKnightLeo I don't agree with your statement that God is fully responsible for everything that occurs within creation - God put us "in charge" of creation, to look after the earth, we are responsible for our own decisions and choices and for that we will be judged. God knows the future, which is called "precognition", this can co-exist with our free will (as I describe in reply to another comment about free will and God being omniscient).
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks What part of "omniscient" is troubling you? God is all-knowing. That means that, PRIOR to the moment of creation, he knew EXACTLY what would happen. God cannot be absolved of moral responsibility for his creation the way a mortal creator can, precisely because God can never claim "he didn't know THAT would happen". I don't know what free will would mean in this context, but since God could choose NOT to create, he must take FULL moral responsibility for ALL of creation.
GoblinKnightLeo 2 months ago
@GoblinKnightLeo Certainly I would say that God is responsible for the creation of the universe, so on one level he is responsible for what goes on within creation. I think it is quite difficult for us to "put ourselves in God's position" and try to speculate about his choices. He does take the responsibility for solving the problem of sin - through the death of Jesus. I'm sorry if I can't give you a satisfactory answer within these brief comments. Email me if you want to discuss it further.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks Except that prior to the moment of creation, he already knew who would accept Jesus and who would not. Meaning that he went ahead with a method of absolution that he knew a huge number of people would never accept. Meaning that he created those people knowing they were going to be damned.
He could have made something more convincing, he could have altered humanity so that more people would be wired to accept it, or any number of other options.
GoblinKnightLeo 2 months ago
@rickytinks Which means that every single person in Hell is there because God made them into sinners. Remember, Christianity teaches that God KNOWS what will happen, not merely that he is a good guesser. He knows exactly what would convince people, and what wouldn't. He chose something that he knew a huge proportion of his Creation would not accept.
Because he is the Creator, it is, by definition, HIS FAULT that atheists reject him, because he created them knowing they would.
GoblinKnightLeo 2 months ago
@GoblinKnightLeo This is a very difficult area, because we can never fully understand how God works. There is a range of Christian theology: Calvinists believe in predestination - that we have no free will, God chooses those who will be saved and go to heaven. Armenians are at the other end of the spectrum - they believe that we have total free will, and they diminish God's role in salvation. I struggle with both theologies - maybe the truth is in between cont.
rickytinks 2 months ago
If there is no free will, we have no role to play in our salvation, this doesn't seem fair - those that are condemned to Hell cannot do anything about it. At the same time, we cannot "earn" our salvation, we are not good enough. There is also the paradox of "irresistible grace", if we were offered salvation then no-one in their right mind would reject it, so does this mean we have no choice? I'm not sure where you are at, but you sound angry at God. Please email if you want to. Merry Christmas!
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks you do realise this is the comment section on youtube right?
parelpotje 1 month ago
@parelpotje I know what you mean, but it has developed into a discussion about God stuff. I wasn't really expecting that, but when people are raising issues or asking questions I'm just trying to get across a Christian view point ...
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks There is no reconciling this. Because it's not merely that God picked up a lump of pre-existing clay and made it into man, knowing what attributes man would have. He is the CREATOR, which means that he CHOSE those attributes that men have. And he did this for each man. So the attributes of all men, including those of evil men, are directly attributable to God, because God could have at any time chosen different attributes for him, or for the world.
GoblinKnightLeo 2 months ago
@rickytinks He is NOTHING like a mortal creator, who must deal with such elements as he can lay hands on. He could have made anything.
GoblinKnightLeo 2 months ago
@GoblinKnightLeo Happy New Year ! As you say, it is a difficult issue to reconcile, and we seem to have quite different views on the issue. I would just come back to what the Bible says - that as individuals we will be held accountable for our lives, for the choices we have made, God will be our judge. I know that I'm a sinner (I am selfish, angry, envious, etc) but I also know forgiveness in Jesus.
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks You can't tell me that the Bible says something, but that your whole conception of God stands in flat contradiction to it, and tell me that it doesn't invalidate your position.
You cannot reconcile the idea of humans being judged with God being the supernatural creator with a supernatural viewpoint.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 month ago
@GoblinKnightLeo Sorry, but I can reconcile God being our Judge and our Creator. Maybe the key to this is that he also provides the solution - the sacrifice. He offers to stand in the dock of the court room and take our punishment. Or we can try and justify our sin on our own. We each have a choice to make ...
rickytinks 4 weeks ago
@rickytinks You seem like a nice, polite religious person, as an Atheist may I offer the hand of friendship?
SmileForInsanity 2 months ago
@SmileForInsanity Thank you ! It makes a change from the hostile abusive comments I sometimes receive. Sorry for the delay, I've been a bit busy around Christmas and the New Year - or, the "holiday season" as you may refer to it !!
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks since he is all-knowing-powerful and he is in the past - present - future he already knew adam and eve would " rebel " so it is his own fault.
Waustvanput 2 months ago
@Waustvanput This is all about "precognition" (God knowing the future) but us having free will. A bit like some scenes in The Matrix. The "Oracle", who is sort of analogous to God in that she knows something of the future, says to Neo "don't worry about the vase", then he says "what vase?" and turns and knocks it over. She says "would you have knocked it over if I hadn't said anything?". God allows us to make choices and sometimes mistakes, then helps us learn from them - like a good father
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks Wait a minute, if original creation was perfect, that is, to be without flaws, then how could have Adam and Eve rebelled?
TheBanile 2 months ago
@TheBanile Because God gave them (and us) free will. There is a scene in The Matrix when Morpheus says to Neo "Do you believe in fate?" and he says no, because he believes he is in control of his own life. In the same way, I don't believe in "predestination", I think we can make choices. If Adam and Eve had no choice and they could only do exactly what God told them to do, then they would be nothing more than robots - pre-programmed to do things. God created us for relationship.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks Makes a very strange sort of sense I suppose. Still don't really see why Adam and Eve would, or even could really, rebel against perfection. I mean, there's no motivation to do so...?
TheBanile 2 months ago
@TheBanile Good point. I guess it comes down to temptation and the desire to "be like God", wanting the power and wisdom of God. According to the Bible this is also what Satan wanted and he was cast out of heaven because of this desire.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks I suppose. Still strikes as odd that God did nothing to stop his creations, even though, being god, he should and would have the foresight to know what would happen. :P Clearly, god is very poor at human psychology..
TheBanile 2 months ago
@TheBanile I believe that God knows our every thought - he knew us in our mother's womb and knows everything about us. I believe he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, Sovereign over his Universe. We try too much to define him and "put him in a box", thinking that we're "intelligent" and can comprehend God. There's a verse in the Bible in the book of Isaiah 55:8 that says "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.". Merry Christmas!
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks If you take the Law of Uncertainty into account, and accept that God is omnipresent, then we do not have free will. Should He know both the velocity and position of every particle in the universe, then He will know the precise outcome of everything, including the thought and acts of humans with a 100% accuracy, thereby giving us no free will. Similar to how, if you know the direction and velocity of every pool ball on a table, you know how which balls will go where.
TehOrkyMan 2 months ago
@TehOrkyMan Thanks for the comment. This issue has prompted several similar comments and I've tried to describe "precognition" and "predestination". Personally I don't believe in predestination - this seems meaningless to me. If you are interested, have a look at the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible - it was written about 3,000 years ago and the author talks about whether there is any meaning to life ...
rickytinks 1 month ago
@rickytinks Sounds like you’re trying to shift the blame from God to God’s so-called perfect creation. “The Fall of Mankind” is God’s catch-22. God is supposed to be omniscient, thus God punished Adam and Eve (along with the rest of humanity) for an action that God knew they would take. That whole “freewill” thing is just a fallacy when factoring in an omniscient deity. If Adam and Eve actually had the freewill to choose, then God couldn’t be omniscient.
HotblackDesiat042 2 months ago
@HotblackDesiat042 There have been several comments along this theme of free will and precognition, compared to fate / predestination. I believe that God knows the future and therefore knows the choices we're going to make, but they are still our choices and we are therefore responsible for the consequences - just like in a court of law. I see God as our loving heavenly Father and just as a father sometimes allows his child to make mistakes to learn, so does God.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks No offense, but I feel as though you’re not seeing the flaws in this story as I do.
Adam & Eve are part of God’s perfect creation, but granted them an ability to make mistakes which is perceived as an imperfection. So God create them perfectly imperfect? Is God contradictory?
Or did God create them to purposely fulfill exactly what he intended?
(cont.)>
HotblackDesiat042 2 months ago
@rickytinks (cont.) God tests Adam & Eve with an illusion of choice. And I claim it is an illusion, because if God is omniscient, then he was fully aware that there was a necessity for the talking snake which he created for the purpose of deceiving Adam & Eve to produce the foreknown outcome to which he was privy. Therefore God caused them to make this “mistake” by rigging the test. In other words, God purposely set them up to fail. (cont.)>
HotblackDesiat042 2 months ago
@rickytinks (cont.) Even our courts of law are aware of this notion called entrapment.
Then somehow it was an act of benevolence that God held them (as well as all of humanity) accountable for this failure? In other words, this “loving father” essentially disowned his children and kicked them out of his house, forsaking his grandchildren, great grandchildren, and etcetera to boot. I’m sorry but this strikes me more as malevolence than benevolence. <(End)
HotblackDesiat042 2 months ago
@HotblackDesiat042 Thanks for the replies. This is a very difficult area, because we can never fully understand how God works. There is a range of Christian theology: Calvinists believe in predestination - that we have no free will, God chooses those who will be saved and go to heaven. Armenians are at the other end of the spectrum - they believe that we have total free will, and they diminish God's role in salvation. I struggle with both theologies - maybe the truth is inbetween (cont.)>
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks If there is no free will, we have no role to play in our salvation, then this doesn't seem fair - those that are condemned to Hell cannot do anything about it. But, at the same time, we cannot "earn" our salvation, as we are not good enough. There is also the paradox of "irresistible grace", if we were offered salvation then no-one in their right mind would reject it, so do this mean we have no choice? (cont.)>
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks You make a good point about entrapment. In a way you're right, as God did know that they would succumb to the temptation and sin. However, God is loving as well as being a judge, so he provided the solution, the redemption, the atonement - he paid the price for the sin in the death of Jesus. He doesn't disown us - according to the Bible he wants to have a relationship with us. No offence taken and I hope my attempt at answers don't offend you. Email me if you want to discuss more.
rickytinks 2 months ago
@rickytinks
Even though it clearly had no idea how life arose, had no idea how the universe worked or how big it was. A fair bit of rationalising needs to be done before you'd "find it to be true"!
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis I find the Bible to be full of truth and that it makes sense of life. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life". Who do you say he is? He was either a Lunatic, Liar or Lord, a good teacher isn't an option. On that subject, Richard Dawkins is not a good teacher - he is quoted as saying "we now know 90% of everything" which is a crazy statement - we don't know what we don't know ... from @GodTheReality
rickytinks 3 months ago
@rickytinks
Well people make sense of life with hundreds of different belief systems- the fact that people can "make things fit" their lives says nothing about the truth of them. Yes, I believe that was a CS Lewis quote- but he missed one option: "Legend". I think Jesus was probably just an influential philosopher and his followers ascribed the supernatural bits to him to help gain followers. Where did Dawkins say that then? I've read most of his books and sure didn't read anything that mad!
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Everyone needs to make their own mind up of course. I believe that the most important question to be answered is "Who do you say Jesus is?". He claimed to be God. He either knew he wasn't (Liar), didn't know he wasn't (Lunatic) or he was (Lord). Logically they are the only options, as CS Lewis points out. In any case, if his followers made up loads of stuff, why were they prepared to die for lies, as many of them did? The quote is from a TV interview he did.
rickytinks 3 months ago
@rickytinks
Did you not read my message? I just pointed out that those weren't the only 3 options, CS Lewis missed one. I think it's most likely that he never claimed to be God or did any miracles but his followers attributed this to him because they were so devoted to him and wanted to spread their devotion.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis The Bible records in manyplaces that Jesus was God. Thomas said "My Lord and my God". Peter said "you are the Christ". If Peter and the other disciples made a lot of it up, how come they were prepared to die for the lies? When arrested and confronted about being followers of Jesus they could have just denied it all and walked free. Peter was crucified upside down for his belief. Several other disciples were also either crucified or stoned to death.
rickytinks 3 months ago
@rickytinks
Well the only evidence that ANY of that ever happened is the 4 gospels- which were written decades later by anonymous authors. I didn't say I thought the disciples made it all up- I think the actual authors just made the stories fit the conclusion that he was God, who knows what the actual disciples said/thought.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis The gospel of John is widely believed to have been written by the disciple of that name. Matthew probably was - if not, then he was certainly involved in producing it. Luke was a doctor who wrote in 80AD. Mark was a friend of the disciple Peter and wrote about 40-75AD. The latest date would be about 45 years after Jesus died. So this is the equivalent of someone writing now about England winning the World Cup in 1966. There would be people still alive who met Jesus.
rickytinks 2 months ago