If computers, cars, etc. have designers why not the universe?

[Retro Rob]

Good job sounding ignorant as hell buddy.

Evolution by selection is a lab-experimental fact. The only question left is "can nature select?"; seems fairly reasonable to argue it can.

What's ignorant is you trying get something from 0+0.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What's ignorant is you trying get something from 0+0.

When was there 0?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

What's ignorant is you trying get something from 0+0.

1. Evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life.

2. No scientific theory deals with "0". If you're talking about abiogenesis then that doesn't deal with "0" and if you are talking about the big bang theory then that doesn't deal with "0" either.

Perhaps you're just unusually daft though and "0" is the amount of knowledge outside of your own delusions that you possess?

 

[IronWing]

I once hired a guy to build be a nice, 30,000 sq ft home... my dream home.

So, I picked him up in my car and drove him to the plot of land I had bought. He said "sure, I can put a home here for you for a price of $$$". I said "ok" and that I would provide him with the needed directions/blueprints and a supply. He was elated!

He came back a couple days later with his team of guys ready to get started. I had all the permits and everything. He then asked: "ok, where are the supplies?". I then handed him and his team a hammer and screw driver apiece, a bag of cement, and pack of nuts/bolts/nails and told them to get to work.

He was baffled and said "we can't build you a house.. you haven't given us what we need". I told him to look around himself and look at the things around us. Those came from nothing, and so can this house. I gave him something, though.. enough to get the job done. Needless to say he quit and they left.

Better still, I stopped him and offered to give him all the supplies. Even some of the cosmetics like a flat-screen, furniture, computer, outdoor pool material, paint, enough concrete, etc. We came back and piled all of this stuff on the foundation. I ended up firing him because all I needed was a nuclear explosion and out would come a well-built, strong house. After all, our human civilization was made this way -- the right chemicals, and a well-timed explosion... who needs a freaking contractor???

Needless to say, all I got was a pile of fire and rubble.... ... not my dream home.

I hope you passed on the collection plate the day that sermon was delivered. It sucks. Even by the low standards customarily applied to preacher babble, it still sucks.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

^yep

What's ignorant is you trying get something from 0+0.

Hey Bobby; try reading the thread.

I've delivered the best apologetics this forums has ever fing seen!

BAM!

Here's some cliffs:

0. Evil exists.
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
3. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

A solution (with many limitations):

God wanted you and me to exist just as we are. God is incapable of evil (evil is contrary to God and God can not contradict himself). you and me can not exist just as we are without evil. Therefore God allowed for evil so that you and me, just as we are, could exist.

In this scenario the answer is to be you, be just who you are, because that's what God wants of you right now. Though, I feel obliged to admit, I've seen a lot of good come to folks that were having a horrible time in their lives but came to a faith in Christ and it helped dramatically: this is something that doesn't exactly make sense given my solution to the problem.

Dixy, your path of logic makes no sense. Let me re-arrange your post it so that it makes sense to me.


Therefore, we should not exist.

How could a good God allow for evil? If we define God as is the maximum good that means that allowing for evil is a necessary condition as without it you and I don't exist, nor does the good we do. (This assumes that Good is >> Evil and, therefore, gaining a unit of good is >> an added unit of evil)

I don't need a Shepard,

Never said you did... actually I said you should be who you are unless you don't want to be any more (in which case faith in Christ is a solution)

 

[IronWing]

Hey Bobby; try reading the thread.

I've delivered the best apologetics this forums has ever fing seen!

BAM!

This is true. I don't agree with many of your points but you have delivered them very well.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Hey Bobby; try reading the thread.

I've delivered the best apologetics this forums has ever fing seen!

BAM!

Check my answer to the problem of evil:


A solution (with many limitations):

God wanted you and me to exist just as we are. God is incapable of evil (evil is contrary to God and God can not contradict himself). you and me can not exist just as we are without evil. Therefore God allowed for evil so that you and me, just as we are, could exist.

In this scenario the answer is to be you, be just who you are, because that's what God wants of you right now. Though, I feel obliged to admit, I've seen a lot of good come to folks that were having a horrible time in their lives but came to a faith in Christ and it helped dramatically: this is something that doesn't exactly make sense given my solution to the problem.

If god is omnipotent then he is also omniscient, if he is omniscient he knows every action every human will commit and has known it since before the dawn of time itself, god cannot be wrong.

This means that no human being can ever choose anything that god doesn't know they will choose and that humans have no free will. A rapist cannot choose NOT to rape a woman if god knows he will rape that woman.

God created man knowing this, god created all evil in the world, god is evil.

Logic, bitch, deal with it.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If god is omnipotent then he is also omniscient, if he is omniscient he knows every action every human will commit and has known it since before the dawn of time itself, god cannot be wrong.

This means that no human being can ever choose anything that god doesn't know they will choose and that humans have no free will. A rapist cannot choose NOT to rape a woman if god knows he will rape that woman.

God created man knowing this, god created all evil in the world, god is evil.

Logic, bitch, deal with it.

Omnipotent and Omniscient are two things that are not ascribed to the God of the bible.

I've already given a situation where God is not omnipotent: she can not contradict her-self.

Actually, the whole concept of God evaporates in a puff of logic if God can do anything because God can do X that God can't do and then do X therefore contradicting the truthfulness of God.

Also, you are right, my argument starts with the premise "God is not Omniscient"

I make this argument for the same reason I argue God is not omnipotent. If God can 'think' anything she wants then she can think a thought that God can't think and BAM un-exo-nillo.

You're good John; you've clearly exposed my argument's assumptions and I agree; if either of those assumptions fall my argument falls.

Of course I get to cheat! Since I get to imagine up God however I want I can 'morph-around' the objections by re-defining the term we are arguing over. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

To defend this move:

My argument is that the God that Jesus said is father is the God I'm speaking of. That God is defined biblically so I'm justified in changing definitions from what is typically accepted aslong as they fall in those bounds. (this a part of the numerous assumptions I mentioned but didn't get into)

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Omnipotent and Omniscient are two things that are not ascribed to the God of the bible.

Job 37:16 Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.

I've already given a situation where God is not omnipotent: she can not contradict her-self.

Irrelevant since it's incoherent.

Actually, the whole concept of God evaporates in a puff of logic if God can do anything because God can do X that God can't do and then do X therefore contradicting the truthfulness of God.

Also, you are right, my argument starts with the premise "God is not Omniscient"

I make this argument for the same reason I argue God is not omnipotent. If God can 'think' anything she wants then she can think a thought that God can't think and BAM un-exo-nillo.

You're good John; you've clearly exposed my argument's assumptions and I agree; if either of those assumptions fall my argument falls.

Of course I get to cheat! Since I get to imagine up God however I want I can 'morph-around' the objections by re-defining the term we are arguing over. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

To defend this move:

My argument is that the God that Jesus said is father is the God I'm speaking of. That God is defined biblically so I'm justified in changing definitions from what is typically accepted aslong as they fall in those bounds. (this a part of the numerous assumptions I mentioned but didn't get into)

I'm not so sure your definitions fall inside those bounds.

1 John 3:19-20 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Acts 15-19 Known to God from eternity are all his works

There is a lot more but suffice to say that without being omniscient then no prophecies can be attributed to god but rather to the guesswork of men.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Job 37:16 Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.



Irrelevant since it's incoherent.



I'm not so sure your definitions fall inside those bounds.

1 John 3:19-20 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Acts 15-19 Known to God from eternity are all his works

I'm aware of the biblical depths of the argument but I'd prefer not bat-down one verse at a time as i'll end delivering a course in systematic theology.

There is a lot more but suffice to say that without being omniscient then no prophecies can be attributed to god but rather to the guesswork of men.

My argument for various verses hinges on the idea that knowing everything that is/was/will-be on earth and being able to think of anything and everything before creation are two different things. God can't contradict herself in thought or dead. So God could not know what the universe would be like until she created it; when God did this she then knew what would happen. That is to say, God couldn't know what the evil parts of our world would be like until God allowed for evil.

All-knowing as it relates to our world/universe and all-knowing in a true 'omni' sense are two different things. The logical impossibility of the 'omni' presents to us the logical limits of God.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm aware of the biblical depths of the argument but I'd prefer not bat-down one verse at a time as i'll end delivering a course in systematic theology.

My argument for various verses hinges on the idea that knowing everything that is/was/will-be on earth and being able to think of anything and everything before creation are two different things. God can't contradict herself in thought or dead. So God could not know what the universe would be like until she created it; when God did this she then knew what would happen. That is to say, God couldn't know what the evil parts of our world would be like until God allowed for evil.

All-knowing as it relates to our world/universe and all-knowing in a true 'omni' sense are two different things. The logical impossibility of the 'omni' presents to us the logical limits of God.

But then we are back to god both creating and allowing all that is evil. This still doesn't change that if what you say is true, that god knew what would happen exactly when she created the universe, there is no such free will and no choices that can be made.

There is no real logical impossibility of omniscience. There is however a logical problem with omniscience (at any time) and free will, thus either god is all knowing and there is no free will or god knows nothing more than man (past and present).

Actually "god could not know what the universe would be like before she created it" would make her a pretty shitty designer who had no clue what she was doing. Would you say that a competent designer has a clue what will happen with what she designs? I would.

Of course, these musings are kind of irrelevant to the Christian religion and more personal since Christian doctrine dictates an omnipotent god.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

thus either god is all knowing and there is no free will or god knows nothing more than man (past and present)

I don't accept this but I respect where it's coming from.

I would say, instead, that once God knew all that the universe would entail God is left with the option to either destroy the potentiality of who you and I are, right now, or let it be in its evil. That God knew you and I would be who, and what, we are right now at this very moment and didn't change the universe such as denies who we are, right now.

I'm glad God allowed for evil as she did; otherwise I wouldn't be who I am.

I am not qualified to speak to free-will: but I don't think that choosing not to change who you and I are, and knowing what we will do, is the same as removing our free-will.

Of course, these musings are kind of irrelevant to the Christian religion and more personal since Christian doctrine dictates an omnipotent god.

That God is not a liar is a basic assumption in Christian doctrine, this limits God to non-omnipotent because God can not contradict herself; But I recognize that contrary to this Christians almost always say God is omnipotent.

would make her a pretty shitty designer who had no clue what she was doing.

Having a baby is messy buisness; I think having the 'evil-influenced' us is also messy, but some day God will for get (un-make) the existence that's creating us while preserving the good in-us that has come-about.

This metaphor is used a few places in the bible:

A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world.

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

For a being of pure-will thinking and doing are the same thing.

This is true. I don't agree with many of your points but you have delivered them very well.

Thank you. I don't want to convince anyone to take my perspective, only to have as much respect for my perspective as I have for theirs.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So the JWs have a problem... They translate text inconsistently inorder to attain an effect they set-out to find before they started the translation. It's just strait-up lies that passed for knowledge before we had an internet to check facts.

I don't know what box they've put you in; but failing to recognize that we've got some of the strongest possible historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is the intelectual equivalent of that JW simply refusing to recognize that the watchtower group translates the same word different ways.

That Jesus historically existed has been well hashed out on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

after that we get what we can establish bout the life of Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Two_basic_historical_facts


It takes a much stronger mind to recognize the best available facts and create a world-view around them than it does to choose a world view and then attach yourself to bits of information that are in-line with that world view.

So still no sources from around when "jebus" wre supposed to live...you know...myths are know, because they have no sources fro mthe same time.

Just like stockbrokers didn't jump from windows under the reat depression...people will beleiave anything...and epscially with religion.....evidence are not required...or put the the same standard as anything else.

Te bible is so full of lies and historical inaccuracies that using it for anything is a joke.

No, herodes didn't kill all male children..another religious lie.

the list is long and don't start and stop with "jebus"...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"jebus" wre mthe reat beleiave epscially "jebus"...

You're just embarrassing yourself now son.

 

[Lonbjerg]

You're just embarrassing yourself now son.

Nope, I don't bother to correct errors when writing to religious idiots...get over it.
Why?
Because errors, lies and ignorance are what I am getting back...but nice fallacy.