I really shouldn't have chucked that Evolutionary parable in <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
What I was trying to say is that Genesis is a parable for Evolution, my own views fall somewhere in between Boggles and the non-religious in that I believe God created the world but not in the literal manner that Genesis records it. I believe God created the world and evolution was the process by which he did it.
My point is for the dude to have written Genesis and to write a parable of evolution he must have had an understanding,which for that time is pretty incredilble and it could be argued divine inspiration.
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Sep 25 2003, 04:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 25 2003, 04:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...why isn't all the water on the surface of the earth boiling constantly (higher pressure lowers the boiling point of water if IIRC, could be other way - Believe it or not, I'm not a physicist ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats kinda scary, a physisist who doesn't know that boiling temeratures are lowered by <b>lower</b> pressure (as evidenced by astronaughts exposed to vacum who's blood boils [actually, I suppose more cosmonauts have died that way...])... Oh well, nobody is perfect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's right, thought so <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> It was one or the other, it has been a while since I read the book.
Incidently
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not a physicist <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although you may have been reffering to the book, in that case, it was my error, not theirs. My memory is good, but only for biology, I have little interest in physics (well except mechanics, like force, momentum etc, but we all have our dirty habits). O_o, hence the book reference <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ah Forget it
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really shouldn't have chucked that Evolutionary parable in? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? It's your opinion and it certainly isn't unreasonable. I've met more than a few people who think exactly the same thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Compile response to Noah reply from Aegeri <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I think it would be rather futile as there is NO way you are going to convince me of getting 1 million odd animal species into one boat, nor is there any way you can ever make a sane argument that 300,000,000+ insect species will survive for 40 days on vegetation mats. This is one of the many reasons creationism btw is often disregarded straight away. I'd like to see the last article on Noahs ark in Nature, like, EVER. We aren't even getting into how this thing *floats* with that much weight, where the oil comes from to seal the wood (so it doesn't break apart from leaks) and many many other aspects.
In fact, there isn't a sane argument anywhere for the defence of Noahs ark, it is THAT improbable. First argument though can be one I didn't cover, how do you get the required water (for the flood) in the atmosphere without raising the pressure on the surface of the earth to such levels it would crush a human being inside out? Likewise, why isn't all the water on the surface of the earth boiling constantly (higher pressure lowers the boiling point of water if IIRC, could be other way - Believe it or not, I'm not a physicist <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). Likewise, explain how Noah, and every other animal on earth (and sea critters) suddenly and rapidly adjusted to the sudden pressure change? Bacteria I know COULD achieve this feat, Noah on the other hand would actually explode and so would most other critters. (Contemporary College Physics, Jones/Childers. If you want to look up the physics yourself. It is a readable textbook)
As I said, there isn't a sane scientific argument that can ever be put forth for noahs ark, and I've pretty much read most of it. It would essentially turn into the previous argument, I'd demand journal references, eg that there are a limited number of kinds of animals, that could reproduce the massive amount of earths diversity in 4,000 years feasibly, which is essentially impossible (from what we know of genetics) etc etc. Eventually it would generate back into that silly argument as to the evil scientific community journal conspiracy et al. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I do however think something like Noahs ark happened. It involved a man, a certain flood previously mentioned, a crudely built boat with a goat and a sheep and a LOT of exaggeration. I have a good feeling that is where it probably came from.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
great, so we are on the same page. Will shall never convince you that it did happen, and you shall never convince us that it didnt.
WTH ARE WE AREGUING ABOUT?? If a cant convice B and if B and convice A, they may as well just agree to disagree. it is the only way they will get along.
From now on, my reply will just be "you are entitled to your own opion. In my opinion, i think you are wrong, but thats just me. have a nice day."
I can see this thread is going nowhere - each topic is broiught up and reaches its eventual and predictable conclusion. A thinks B is wrong, B thinks A is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 25 2003, 04:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 25 2003, 04:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can see this thread is going nowhere - each topic is broiught up and reaches its eventual and predictable conclusion. A thinks B is wrong, B thinks A is wrong.
Have a nice day <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a middle ground Boggle whereby you can understand and take truths from the Bible but use your head to look at it academically and sift the truth from it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 25 2003, 04:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 25 2003, 04:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and the bible is.... A BOOK!! WOOT!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahhhh but it depends on 'teh book'. I would not count the bible as a 100% accurate source, but you already knew that.
I would however, be prepared in a historical argument to accept Anthony Beevors Stalingrad or Berlin for example (Which is what I had in mind for 'book' at the time). In scientific arguments any recent Nature article would be basically the ultimate in references, and any reputable textbook like Campbell Biology would also be good.
I said 'book' in context of a historical debate really, because you don't normally get scientific textbooks in history <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->. In a scientific one the bible is not a good source at all. I would however, be prepared to argue it in a historical context like in the Crusades, this sort of thread etc.
Do not deliberately misinterpret things :/
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->great, so we are on the same page. Will shall never convince you that it did happen, and you shall never convince us that it didnt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose the difference is in the evidence then <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Larry (I wanted to respond this earlier but got caught up D: ):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, the faith described in the Bible had numerous competing religions of various other peoples. I would then suggest that you would not want to be 'out-done' by anyone else. That is, your god is the best, the strongest, the most powerful. It seems reasonable to argue that the fantastic miracles mentioned are in part a way to take power away from your competing faiths. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bible is not really meant to be read as some sort of encouragement to suddenly up and join that religion. It's more a description on how people of that religion should lead their lives and presumably to provide comfort against things like persecution (and just general fear of the unknown). I doubt they were trying to outcompete other religions, who were just really out there at the time (take a look at the greek ones for example).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A very often cited but useful example is the massive book written on a single comma in John 3:16.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm... never heard of that. What's the trouble with John 3:16?
I know books about the question where the full stop belongs in John 1:3, i.e. which verse "that has been created" refers to. That controversy could be said to be about a comma.
And then there's the infamous "comma johanneum" in 1 John 5:7, but that's not a comma but a sentence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Compile response to Noah reply from Aegeri <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I think it would be rather futile as there is NO way you are going to convince me of getting 1 million odd animal species into one boat, nor is there any way you can ever make a sane argument that 300,000,000+ insect species will survive for 40 days on vegetation mats. This is one of the many reasons creationism btw is often disregarded straight away. I'd like to see the last article on Noahs ark in Nature, like, EVER. We aren't even getting into how this thing *floats* with that much weight, where the oil comes from to seal the wood (so it doesn't break apart from leaks) and many many other aspects.
In fact, there isn't a sane argument anywhere for the defence of Noahs ark, it is THAT improbable. First argument though can be one I didn't cover, how do you get the required water (for the flood) in the atmosphere without raising the pressure on the surface of the earth to such levels it would crush a human being inside out? Likewise, why isn't all the water on the surface of the earth boiling constantly (higher pressure lowers the boiling point of water if IIRC, could be other way - Believe it or not, I'm not a physicist <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). Likewise, explain how Noah, and every other animal on earth (and sea critters) suddenly and rapidly adjusted to the sudden pressure change? Bacteria I know COULD achieve this feat, Noah on the other hand would actually explode and so would most other critters. (Contemporary College Physics, Jones/Childers. If you want to look up the physics yourself. It is a readable textbook)
As I said, there isn't a sane scientific argument that can ever be put forth for noahs ark, and I've pretty much read most of it. It would essentially turn into the previous argument, I'd demand journal references, eg that there are a limited number of kinds of animals, that could reproduce the massive amount of earths diversity in 4,000 years feasibly, which is essentially impossible (from what we know of genetics) etc etc. Eventually it would generate back into that silly argument as to the evil scientific community journal conspiracy et al. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I do however think something like Noahs ark happened. It involved a man, a certain flood previously mentioned, a crudely built boat with a goat and a sheep and a LOT of exaggeration. I have a good feeling that is where it probably came from.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
great, so we are on the same page. Will shall never convince you that it did happen, and you shall never convince us that it didnt.
WTH ARE WE AREGUING ABOUT?? If a cant convice B and if B and convice A, they may as well just agree to disagree. it is the only way they will get along.
From now on, my reply will just be "you are entitled to your own opion. In my opinion, i think you are wrong, but thats just me. have a nice day."
I can see this thread is going nowhere - each topic is broiught up and reaches its eventual and predictable conclusion. A thinks B is wrong, B thinks A is wrong.
Have a nice day <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Boggle the point of the discussion forums is not to convince the other side of the rightness of your arguement. We are ALL wasting our time if thats the Goal. The idea behind this thread at least is to take what I believe, and hold it up for scrutiny and criticism from other people. Thats the real test of your understanding, and if you have any flaws/things you havent thought about, then someone is sure to show you. You leave, find out if they are right or wrong. If they are right, then you're learning. If they are wrong, then you faith in your original arguement is strengthened.
I dont post to convince, I post to learn, and hopefully give someone something to think about. Couple that with the fact that I just LOVE the sound of my own voice, or the sight of my own posting, and this discussion forum is a gift from God.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT to avaoid further posting on this tangent: Marine01, what you failed to understand in that other thread, and what your currently fail to understand is that the reason scientific creationist sources are not regarded as being credable is that they arent. This is evidenced by their lack of being in Scientific Journals and being taken seriously by their peers (as Aegeri put it... more or less). There is no conspiracy against them, and this is not circular logic. They aren't being taken seriously because they have yet to produce an argument with any validity (AFAIK). Face it Marine01, you got pwned, seriously pwned, because you did not have the background nessesary to successfully argue your possition. Try not to take it so hard, as Aegeri said, there is always a bigger fish.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT To reply to skulkbait above - Absolutely. Aegeri knew FAR more about the topic at hand then I did, so as far as that arguement went, I lost - pwned is a very good description. Totally and completely pwned. However, Aegeri is a big fish in a small pond. And he argued at a level above me. For me to answer him, I would have to find sources that debated with him on the same level, which would reduce me to basically the messenger boy between Aegeri and someone who could argue it on his level. And I'm not up for that.
Now because Aegeri knew more and pwned me and my arguements, do I therefore abandon my position as a creationist - not at all. Because I know that there are people at Aegeri's level who could answer him, they just werent present at the time. I will however not let that prevent me from checking up on what he said, because if his arguement pwns the people on his level, then I'll be joining him in ridiculing them.
Now I will give you that a lot of creationist arguements are bunk - rubbish. And for that reason they wont get into any respectable scientific journal. The same can be said for some evolutionairy articles. However, when you get to the situation that Aegeri now seems to be in, which is EVERY and ALL creationist is a fool therefore I dont even need to read his material because I know its trash - then you got problems. And that is what some creationists claim is happening - they are now automatically classified as fools for daring to suggest that evolution may be wrong. Thus they are excluded from Journals, and are told the only way to prove their credibility is to get in the Journals - circular. I dont doubt some of them firmly deserve to be thrown out of journals, but I suspect that any decent ones are being discriminated against.
So I do understand skulk, and I do admit it - Aegeri was the clear victor there. And now I've hijacked my own thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know thats ripped straight from editted postings above, but I'd hate to think I gave the impression of a really sore loser, so I'm reposting it here so no one misses it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
That said, let my hijacking be the final hijacking please.
Aegeri, if thats the way you feel then I wont post a reply to Noah's ark - but as I said above, I find it worrying that you feel you can discount their arguements without actually having seen them, and be confident beyond reasonable doubt that they are obviously wrong.
And Twex, I'm pretty sure its John 3:16. My father is heavily into Christian Apologetics, and has a mass of books under the house about it. I've never actually read it, but I do remember picking it up, asking Dad what it was about and laughing when he told me. Hrrrmmmmmm now I'm starting to wonder if it is precisely John 3:16........ Maybe its not.....
*licks fingers - opens notepad*
Crosses off reply to Aegeri, puts down call Dad, ask about Book
Double post I know, accursed forum refuses to let me edit the above. I see that you made mention that you had heard most of the arguments, so its a bit rough for me to claim you are dismissing them out of hand. Ignore me. However I would love to read your rebuttal of the book Noah's Ark: A feasibility study.
If any mod would like to merge this with my post above, I would be much obliged.
EDIT well edit works for this post anyway.
Have a read of <a href='http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199607/0167.html' target='_blank'>THIS</a>, its a really generous rebuttal of Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Its not so much a rebuttal as a friendly review, giving him credit where his material actually has merit, and pointing out areas where his logic/consistency isnt too flash.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 25 2003, 06:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 25 2003, 06:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However I would love to read your rebuttal of the book Noah's Ark: A feasibility study. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I actually haven't seen that before. Most of what I've previously argued against, seen argued against is from GiG, and what generally tends to come up in arguments ad infinitum.
I may have/may not have seen it though. It actually has been nearly a year since I last had this particular tangent (which was mostly physics, which would explain why I don't remember it nicely).
Something else I found interesting that I'll share as well:
It seems that in ancient texts, especially compilations like the Bible, inconsistencies can actually provide proof of authenticity. Now when I first heard that, my first impulse was BS! But it actually works out.
The first four books of the New Testament are all telling pretty much exactly the same story. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and possibly John II, I cant believe this I have a Bible not 3 feet away and I cant even be stuffed reaching down to grab it) are all retelling the same events. They all claim to be independent eyewitnesses, or at least the copying down of the telling of eyewitnesses. Now some of them actually have certain events occuring before others, while another book will have those events back to front. So I thought, AHHA - inconsistency. However, not so. It is excellent proof that not only has the Bible NOT been edited so as to make it coherent (I mean geez if you wanted to streamline the Bible you'd have to be pretty stupid to miss stuff like that), but it also shows that the authors all had a different source for what they wrote.
Its not like they copied each other and "got their stories straight", because according to one mans remembrances, Jesus did X before Y, while according to the other man, Jesus did Y before X. One of them is wrong, but it shows they are at least separate witnesses. That adds to their credibility. And then, one author will record an event, and another author will record the same event, but in more detail. Its different, it sometimes doesnt seem to fit, but it adds to the credibility of the witnesses. Minor differences in retelling are to be expected if they really are human.
Strange..... getting it wrong makes it more likely you got it right...
Oh and I'm not ignoring Aegeri, I just replied to him in a pm so as to not further my own hijacking of my own thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE Since when did God allow the slaughtering of animals?
He doesn't. Holding dominion implies responsible treatment of your subjects.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good, you agree with me on one point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE I take it that this is still a sin. Killing anything is a sin.
No, it isn't. Unlawful murder is a sin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlawful? Unlawful for who? God? Government? What law? Please.. tell me. I would hope it isn't the government's law, because then you'd be fundamentally admitting that man's law is more important than God's law. I'll assume you meant God's law. Isn't the definition of "murder" is killing something? There was nothing false about that premise. Look closer next time before pretending like you know what you're talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE So a true christian wouldn't eat meat, right?
Christians can eat whatever they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes? Proof? You have yet to prove me wrong on this point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE Do you see where I'm getting this? Reductum ad absurdum for those of you that know latin.
Reductio ad absurdum. And you need correct premises for it to work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Giving one-liners does not disprove anything. Try again with some real evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Christians can eat whatever they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes? Proof? You have yet to prove me wrong on this point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i am a christian and i eat meat. i have proved it - when peter was on the roof, a sheet ladend with pigs and other animals came down from heaven and God said "kill and eat" therefore, since God commaned him to eat meat, eating meat must be alright.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Isn't the definition of "murder" is killing something?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the definition of murder is <a href='http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/murder' target='_blank'>this</a>: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->unlawful premeditated killing of a human being<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Executing criminals, killing animals, killing in self-defense or killing enemy soldiers in a war is not murder and subject to different rules.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I think it would be rather futile as there is NO way you are going to convince me of getting 1 million odd animal species into one boat<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, are you including the aquatic animal species? Because that's quite a few of them.
And insects...I'm not sure since I'm not a biologist, but I would argue more against the water levels rising above the mountains rather than the survival of insects.
I am going to try and be both minded, scientific and religious. I believe that the bible isn't perfect, there are translation flaws here and there and some scientifical errors that are hidden in this monstrous manuscript. For example: there is a passage in the bible that says the Earth is the center of everything and the heavens surround it. Point being, people thought the Earth was the center of the universe, because they thought God was perfect. I forgot what quote described this kind of situation very well, but Galileo said something along the lines that God gave us knowledge, eyes, a brain, and the whole package to use it to our very best and to find out the unknown; so why restrict people from using what God gave us.
Premise #1: God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-righteous. Premise #2: God allows earthquakes, hunger, suffering. Conclusion: God cannot be all-righteous to create evil.
If you claim God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-righteous, then you can't say God can create evil. If he created evil knowingly, he isn't all-good and all-righteous. If he didn't know he was creating evil, he isn't all-knowing. If he couldn't prevent it, then he isn't all-powerful.
so you think you can stump us with the problem of evil. man that thing is old...
God didnt create evil, man allowed evil into this world with the fall. God doesnt like evil and he will one day put a stop to it, but until then, God has show un even more of his perfect self by sending his son to die for us. Without evil, we wouldnt know God. Evil is the best way of God getting humans closer to him
God is omnipotentm which is why he will put a stop to evil, he is all loving, which is why he sent his sone to die for us, and Evil does exist so God can show his true grace and mercy.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 26 2003, 03:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 26 2003, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so you think you can stump us with the problem of evil. man that thing is old...
God didnt create evil, man allowed evil into this world with the fall. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I think the point is that any which way you slice it, God allowed the potential for evil to exist, and allows it to run rampant now.
If you believe God created us, and we created evil, then indirectly God is responsible for that evil.
point 1 If you created a robot, and programmed it so that all it could every say is "i love you", that isnt love. If your gf/wife loves you because she chooses to, that is love. For God to have a relationship with us humans (because that is why we were created) he had to give us choice.
point 2 what good is a choice with only one option? If i show you 2 squares, and ask you which of thse shapes is your favourite, you have no choice. you have to say a square, because that is the only choice. If i show you a circle and a square, then you can choose - you may say that a square is your favourite, but you may decide that a circle is your favourite. God is deeply upset that many people choose the circle instead of the square, but for the people who choose the square, he know that they choose it because they want to, not because they have no other choice.
In short: God allowed choice, and, yes, this meant allowing evil, but it was man who chose the circle instead of the square asnd brought evil and suffering into the world. If adam and eve hadn't eaten the friut, they would still be perfect, but they did, so we aren't
Choice was the only way to allow us to have a true relationship with God, and because of evil, he can now show us his mercy and grace.
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Sep 26 2003, 03:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Sep 26 2003, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 26 2003, 03:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 26 2003, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so you think you can stump us with the problem of evil. man that thing is old...
God didnt create evil, man allowed evil into this world with the fall. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I think the point is that any which way you slice it, God allowed the potential for evil to exist, and allows it to run rampant now.
If you believe God created us, and we created evil, then indirectly God is responsible for that evil. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well God created what we today call Satan, who as most of us know (maybe not) was an angel named Lucifer and decided to rebel against the Throne and was expelled into Hell. God being all knowing knew that Lucifer would rebell even before creating him or any other angels, so yes, God is very directly responsible for evil, and Hell, and Satan.
For further proof God knew Adam and Eve would fall to temptation, therefore God knew man would be sinners and so God knowingly created man with the ability to sin.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 26 2003, 03:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 26 2003, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> God gave man <b>choice</b>.
...
In short: God allowed choice, and, yes, this meant allowing evil, but it was man who chose the circle instead of the square asnd brought evil and suffering into the world. If adam and eve hadn't eaten the friut, they would still be perfect, but they did, so we aren't
Choice was the only way to allow us to have a true relationship with God, and because of evil, he can now show us his mercy and grace. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The thing is though, am I way off the mark if I compare this to lets say:
A fireman that deliberately starts a fire, then saves people so that they might know him/ praise him ?
Or let's refine this,
A fireman that gives a child a match (knowing the child will give into temptation) who then starts a fire and then has to rely on the fireman to save people so that they might know him / praise him ?
It seems like a contradiction to what I would expect from a loving/secure God. Why not allow neutrality/good and no evil ?
Because without evil we wouldn't know what good was, if there was no evil we couldn't understand Holiness and God would mean nothing to people, if life on Earth was peaceful and without hardship people wouldn't understand Heaven or have anything to compare Hell to. Everything must have a balance, no positive space without negative space.
Ah Twex is going to have a field day - The Arguement From Evil. This was once the flagship of philosophical attacks of the idea of the God of the Bible. And no darn wonder. It makes a pretty good case against him. But as I have been told, in the end the Christian apologists won. Now I would love to waffle on here about the Argument from Evil - but frankly I dont know enough about it, so I am going to sit and wait for Twex.
Oh - and that book written about the comma WAS John 1:3, not John 3:16. Stupid me, I should have known straight off that there is no translation problems with any major Christian tennent, especially one as critical as John 3:16.
And while I'm waiting, short search on Google yeilded THIS - just to help anyone (like me) who doesnt particulairly follow the AFE. This is the Christian apologists rebuttal/their take tho. <a href='http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/antithesis/v2n2/ant_v2n2_evil.html' target='_blank'>The AFE</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Sep 26 2003, 04:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Sep 26 2003, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because without evil we wouldn't know what good was, if there was no evil we couldn't understand Holiness and God would mean nothing to people, if life on Earth was peaceful and without hardship people wouldn't understand Heaven or have anything to compare Hell to. Everything must have a balance, no positive space without negative space. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Evil is not necessary to understand good though. Neutrality is enough.
Example:
You see somebody getting beaten up by gangsters:
Evil : Wait for them to leave and rob the beaten up guy. Neutral: Don't get involved at all. Good: Do something to help
Just realized this argument starts out with an evil act...hmm... so back to the drawing board. Try reading my further thoughts down below.
I see what you're saying Larry, and I really shouldnt read into your specific example as its only trying to demonstrate a point, but isnt watching while your fellow man gets flogged up and robbed bad? To fail to act in the aid of a fellow citizen is an offence (well it is in Australia anyway) and morally indefensible.
Might I suggest we lay down a philosophical definition of Good before we go further?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well God created what we today call Satan, who as most of us know (maybe not) was an angel named Lucifer and decided to rebel against the Throne and was expelled into Hell. God being all knowing knew that Lucifer would rebell even before creating him or any other angels, so yes, God is very directly responsible for evil, and Hell, and Satan.
For further proof God knew Adam and Eve would fall to temptation, therefore God knew man would be sinners and so God knowingly created man with the ability to sin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would seem that the ability to sin comes about with choice or free will. So yes, you could say God gave Man the ability for evil. Does that mean he made a mistake? I dont think so. As that article said "A being is not morally culpable in allowing preventable evil if he has a "morally sufficient reason" for so doing."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's suppose that the anti-theist objects that the theist has not demonstrated that God has this morally sufficient reason. The theist can counter this by arguing that the anti-theist cannot even generate the so-called problem of evil. To talk meaningfully about morality the anti-theist must assume that an objective foundation for morality exists. If he does not (that is, if he is what is sometimes called a moral subjectivist ), he must logically admit that one foundation is as good as any other. Thus, he cannot object to a foundation on which God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil; even worse, he cannot even justify the premise, "Evil exists." If, on the other hand, he claims that an objective foundation for ethics exists, we must press him to give his reason for this. Can there be an objective foundation without a Supreme Lawgiver?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I know on these boards that relative morality is pretty much the accepted norm, but in philosophy land where the AFE comes from, its a really tough problem. The article then follows with Kant etcs attempts to lay down rules for morality that apply to the whole of mankind without the need of a Supreme Lawgiver.
Any argument can be countered by true believers (those with faith unswerving) with "God has a plan, and it is not for us to judge." One needs only to do a Google search on bible contradictions to find a gluttony of sites that detail all of the various inconsistencies that exist within that manuscript.
To me, the bible is a compilation of stories from long ago. Nothing more. Some of it is based on actual historical events. I believe without a doubt that there was a great flood... just a local one. Particularly, the Black Sea in Eurasia. If you look closely at the arrangement of this Sea, there is but a small little section in Turkey where it joins with the Mediterranean Sea. I believe that this was actually continuous, and not a hole at all. This area flooded after the end of the last ice age, which was 12,000 years ago. The ice age locked up a tremendous amount of water. Thus, most areas that are today below sea level were actually dry. The Black Sea area is very close to the areas most people consider the dawn of civilization. That area was most likely an epicenter of human activity. The entire Black Sea area was essentially a large basin, like a bowl. As the ice melted over a period of hundreds or even thousands of years, the oceans and Seas rose higher and higher. This put a tremendous amount of pressure on the walls of this basin. The basin walls just could not withhold that pressure forever, and it broke open. This flooded the entire Black Sea basin. Some villages may have been caught in a particularly low area and all its inhabitants may have perished.
One needs only to look at references to a great flood in all kinds of different religions and past civilizations to understand that it was universal knowledge and a well-told story. As with all stories, people add their own flavoring to it. As time goes on, the true account of what happened disappears as those affected and their succeeding generations die off. Thus you have the completely silly Christian story today of Noah building this giant ark, filling it with every beast known to man, watching as god brought about rain to wipe away all the "bad people" he'd created, then watch that rain from just 40 days and 40 nights somehow fill the entire planet so much that no dry land was accessible... I mean, the story just makes absolutely no scientific sense whatsoever. There was a historical event that triggered it, however.
The stories in the bible were written in the pre-scientific age. Therefore they had no basis for understanding why things happen the way they do. Everyone thought the world was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Completely stupid to think that way today, but back 2000 years ago everyone (sans the few people who might have questioned it) accepted the general consensus understanding of the world. The stars are god's lights for us at night. Blah blah. Today not even creationists are stupid enough to think the Earth is flat. Why then, do they continue to believe these non-sensical stories in the bible as absolute truth?
The reason is very simple. It's called faith. Faith convinces a lot of people to do stupid things. Islamic extremists believe that by strapping bombs to their chests and blowing themselves up to kill the enemy, allah will reward them with countless virgins once they reach their form of heaven. Even Christians used their faith in God to support their holy crusades, massacring countless Muslims to "cleanse" Europe.
It's amazing to see the struggles from almost a millenia ago are still being acted upon today. Religion, unfortunately, is a wholly necessary evil in modern society. Without it, people would go crazy trying to understand why they exist at all. With it, of course, we have an entire history of bloodshed and brutality. Look at Communism and its attempts at atheism... it doesn't work on a large scale. Those of us who are more open-minded and logical towards our existence in this universe and the understanding of how we came to be are unfortunately vastly in the minority.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 26 2003, 04:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 26 2003, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I see what you're saying Larry, and I really shouldnt read into your specific example as its only trying to demonstrate a point, but isnt watching while your fellow man gets flogged up and robbed bad? To fail to act in the aid of a fellow citizen is an offence (well it is in Australia anyway) and morally indefensible.
Might I suggest we lay down a philosophical definition of Good before we go further? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it would be helpful to perhaps explore what exactly constitutes "Good".
It's interesting to learn about that law in Oz. I'm assuming "fail to act" does not necessarily imply that you would have to get physically involved in such a confrontation ?
I see where you are coming from also, and I think my example has its limitations. Most people probably would consider the "neutral" option to be a "bad" thing.
Let's get back onto the philosophical definition of good. I would suggest that "good" implies "beneficial" and "do no harm to others". A "good" act seems to be one that aids/helps rather than destroys/harms.
So I suppose I was hinting at a world where we only chose to help or not help, would be better than a world where we choose to harm/ help / not help.
Why did God then opt for the harm option ? Surely you could understand the value of helping by having the choice of not helping, without having the choice of harming ? Does any of this make sense lol <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Gonna check back in a few guys... I have that Astarte/Virgin Mary link to persue Marine <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
No, you dont have to be physically involved, but you have to do something "within reason". Scream for help, call the police. If they can prove that neglected your duties to a fellow citizen, then you have committed a crime. Similar to finding a man on a beach while you're holidaying. He's broken his leg, its a very remote beach, and you drive off without offering assistance. He takes your number plate, he finally gets rescued, and then the cops come knocking on your door.
Ahhhh but beneficial and "does not harm others" have problems with them. We lock up criminals, and that is not Good for the criminal, its Good for society. We bring something unbeneficial on a person because society has deemed it for the Greater good. So is condemning a violent criminal to jail Good? It's preemptive action ie stopping him from commiting further crimes, but it contradicts your definition of Good. Its causing Bad upon one person in the name of Good. To carry your definition of good to its natural conclusion, you cannot punish anyone, because punishment is inflicting harm/bad stuff upon someone. And that means you are not doing a Good thing.
In philosophical terms, Good and Bad are covered under the idea of Morality. Good is what is morally right. Bad is what is morally wrong. Thus what we are looking for is something to ground morality in. Subjective morality (ie a morality without any foundation or base) is a proven fallacy, and thus philosophers attempt to find a Base for their morality. I can see this is going to be pretty tough laying down a definition of Good and Bad.
WHOA! How did we get onto Bush here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Evisc mate you got a bit carried away there, but never mind. I'd really appreciate it if you'd nuke your last bit, especially since statements like Americans are incredibly stupid, gullible, arrogant, and apathetic aren't going to go down too well with the moderators. And I'd hate to report my own post.
The Bible talks about the breaking up of the "Great fountains of the deep". I think the suggestion is that the water was under the ground, and then God started a cataclysim (sp) that brought the water to the top. If the Earth was perfectly smooth at that time, then that would cause massive flooding, all over. It wasnt supposed to be all rain. At least take the time to have a look at creationist articles, you might find them interesting, you might find them garbage, but at least you have read them and can see where they are coming from.
Argh another Crusades comment. Countless muslims? The following quote is a military historian answering in a forum, so its not to be taken as a solid source, but I'm going to take him at face value. Bear in mind this is a discussion on military history in a secular forum, not some religious forum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some scholarly estimates place the Crusades (1095-1291) causing the deaths of approximately 1,000,000. The main problem with statistics from any historical event is that you become mired in a litany of issues. The major obstacles the scholar has to overcome are: 1. Determining if the numbers are inflated for political/religious reasons. (i.e. A small force defeats a much larger force "proving" that God is on their side. Or battle casualties are decreased to save face.) 2. Determine if the numbers of a particular army could be supported logistically. At times, medieval armies have been chronicled as being 500,000 or more. This would be an impossible task because the simple task of feeding such and army would be a miraculous achievement. 3. Gauge the civilian population at the time of a particular campaign. Figures are lacking when dealing with population statistics in the Levant, but the fact remains that each Crusade was an orgy of bloodshed. 4. Based on contemporary documents, determine if it would be possible for a certain number of combatants to be killed and have an army continue to campaign. Reinforcements during the Crusades were difficult in obtaining. 5. Determine the actual size of a fortification to get an estimate of the true number of defenders / inhabitants. I'm sure that there are many other concerns that arise when trying to estimate the casualties of the Crusades, but these are the only ones I can think of at this time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
About a million, and this is the best that can be thrown at religion to prove its evil and starts war and bloodshed? Stalin butchered his millions, Mao the same, and these guys were athiests. OMG Atheism starts war/killings/murder. Rubbish. Human nature starts war/murder. Religion is just the justifier, not the reason.
That's what I said. Christians used God as their support (read: justification) for what they did during the crusades. I know only humans can kill humans. I'm an atheist... there is no God, it's a human invention. Everything in my mind is man manipulating other men to do their bidding. Religion just happens to be used frequently as the tool by which to easily manipulate others, since it is purely faith that cannot be questioned logically, or reasoned with. One man alone does not make an army.
My reference to modern day U.S. policy of global domination is relevant. The <b>vast</b> majority of Americans believe in some form of God, and they believe in (more or less) the Creationist point of view. The administration uses this to its advantage. Pick someone to go up against, the Muslims, and convince the public that there's these crazy people "over there somewhere" that have done something terrible and horrific to offend our God and our way of life, because they don't like what we do or how we live. It's a classic "us vs them" fight, and religion has everything to do with it.
Back on the flood thing... then I guess all that water that was stored under the ground that rose up is now back under the ground, or something? Or is that the oceans? If you don't take the Bible literally, then you're manipulating it to match your own beliefs. Creationists should stick to their idealistic beliefs and faith and leave the real science to those without hidden agendas. I've tried reading that stuff, and every time they try and counter some scientific explanation, they always say "well that doesn't match what my bible tells me, so it must be wrong." They are intractable and completely closed-minded. Nothing you say or do or prove will ever be sufficient because they expect the answer to be exactly what they believe. It's called faith.
My cousins were raised to be by-the-letter Creationists. They believe every word in the bible for fact. Therefore when they were kids they would always ask "where are the pictures of men with dinosaurs?" Since God created all animals in one day, and man was obviously there at the time, then man and dinosaur must have co-existed. We've dug up the bones of dinosaurs, and no one is contesting that they must be from animals, so... um... where are the pictures? They just have no clue. Too bad they didn't have archaeologists 2000 years ago when all of these stories were being documented. They may have included some kind of alternate explanation for why there are extinct animals that lived long long ago.
The bible is a good bed-time story book. Read it to your kids to teach them good moral values. But it is no more true than a book of fairy tales.
Hang on Evisc, I have to leave right now but I'll reply when I come back.
Okay I'm back. I'm not going to try and defend creationists in the thread, because it will turn into creation vs evolution argument. The idea is that now all that water is in the oceans yeah.
And I've just realised that we've taken this whole thing seriously off topic with the Argument from Evil. That has little to do with the accuracy and consistency of the Bible, and really deserves its own thread. If we try and argue that here we are going to get bogged down in philosophy, and this thread will seriously lose its way. So if we could stop discussing that in this thread I would really appreciate it. I'm more then happy to carry on with it in a separate thread.
Comments
What I was trying to say is that Genesis is a parable for Evolution, my own views fall somewhere in between Boggles and the non-religious in that I believe God created the world but not in the literal manner that Genesis records it. I believe God created the world and evolution was the process by which he did it.
My point is for the dude to have written Genesis and to write a parable of evolution he must have had an understanding,which for that time is pretty incredilble and it could be argued divine inspiration.
Thats kinda scary, a physisist who doesn't know that boiling temeratures are lowered by <b>lower</b> pressure (as evidenced by astronaughts exposed to vacum who's blood boils [actually, I suppose more cosmonauts have died that way...])... Oh well, nobody is perfect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right, thought so <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> It was one or the other, it has been a while since I read the book.
Incidently
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not a physicist <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Although you may have been reffering to the book, in that case, it was my error, not theirs. My memory is good, but only for biology, I have little interest in physics (well except mechanics, like force, momentum etc, but we all have our dirty habits). O_o, hence the book reference <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ah Forget it
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really shouldn't have chucked that Evolutionary parable in? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? It's your opinion and it certainly isn't unreasonable. I've met more than a few people who think exactly the same thing.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
and the bible is.... A BOOK!! WOOT!!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marine:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Compile response to Noah reply from Aegeri <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I think it would be rather futile as there is NO way you are going to convince me of getting 1 million odd animal species into one boat, nor is there any way you can ever make a sane argument that 300,000,000+ insect species will survive for 40 days on vegetation mats. This is one of the many reasons creationism btw is often disregarded straight away. I'd like to see the last article on Noahs ark in Nature, like, EVER. We aren't even getting into how this thing *floats* with that much weight, where the oil comes from to seal the wood (so it doesn't break apart from leaks) and many many other aspects.
In fact, there isn't a sane argument anywhere for the defence of Noahs ark, it is THAT improbable. First argument though can be one I didn't cover, how do you get the required water (for the flood) in the atmosphere without raising the pressure on the surface of the earth to such levels it would crush a human being inside out? Likewise, why isn't all the water on the surface of the earth boiling constantly (higher pressure lowers the boiling point of water if IIRC, could be other way - Believe it or not, I'm not a physicist <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). Likewise, explain how Noah, and every other animal on earth (and sea critters) suddenly and rapidly adjusted to the sudden pressure change? Bacteria I know COULD achieve this feat, Noah on the other hand would actually explode and so would most other critters. (Contemporary College Physics, Jones/Childers. If you want to look up the physics yourself. It is a readable textbook)
As I said, there isn't a sane scientific argument that can ever be put forth for noahs ark, and I've pretty much read most of it. It would essentially turn into the previous argument, I'd demand journal references, eg that there are a limited number of kinds of animals, that could reproduce the massive amount of earths diversity in 4,000 years feasibly, which is essentially impossible (from what we know of genetics) etc etc. Eventually it would generate back into that silly argument as to the evil scientific community journal conspiracy et al. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I do however think something like Noahs ark happened. It involved a man, a certain flood previously mentioned, a crudely built boat with a goat and a sheep and a LOT of exaggeration. I have a good feeling that is where it probably came from.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
great, so we are on the same page. Will shall never convince you that it did happen, and you shall never convince us that it didnt.
WTH ARE WE AREGUING ABOUT?? If a cant convice B and if B and convice A, they may as well just agree to disagree. it is the only way they will get along.
From now on, my reply will just be "you are entitled to your own opion. In my opinion, i think you are wrong, but thats just me. have a nice day."
I can see this thread is going nowhere - each topic is broiught up and reaches its eventual and predictable conclusion. A thinks B is wrong, B thinks A is wrong.
Have a nice day
Have a nice day <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a middle ground Boggle whereby you can understand and take truths from the Bible but use your head to look at it academically and sift the truth from it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhhh but it depends on 'teh book'. I would not count the bible as a 100% accurate source, but you already knew that.
I would however, be prepared in a historical argument to accept Anthony Beevors Stalingrad or Berlin for example (Which is what I had in mind for 'book' at the time). In scientific arguments any recent Nature article would be basically the ultimate in references, and any reputable textbook like Campbell Biology would also be good.
I said 'book' in context of a historical debate really, because you don't normally get scientific textbooks in history <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->. In a scientific one the bible is not a good source at all. I would however, be prepared to argue it in a historical context like in the Crusades, this sort of thread etc.
Do not deliberately misinterpret things :/
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->great, so we are on the same page. Will shall never convince you that it did happen, and you shall never convince us that it didnt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose the difference is in the evidence then <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Larry (I wanted to respond this earlier but got caught up D: ):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, the faith described in the Bible had numerous competing religions of various other peoples. I would then suggest that you would not want to be 'out-done' by anyone else. That is, your god is the best, the strongest, the most powerful. It seems reasonable to argue that the fantastic miracles mentioned are in part a way to take power away from your competing faiths. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bible is not really meant to be read as some sort of encouragement to suddenly up and join that religion. It's more a description on how people of that religion should lead their lives and presumably to provide comfort against things like persecution (and just general fear of the unknown). I doubt they were trying to outcompete other religions, who were just really out there at the time (take a look at the greek ones for example).
Hmm... never heard of that. What's the trouble with John 3:16?
I know books about the question where the full stop belongs in John 1:3, i.e. which verse "that has been created" refers to. That controversy could be said to be about a comma.
And then there's the infamous "comma johanneum" in 1 John 5:7, but that's not a comma but a sentence.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and the bible is.... A BOOK!! WOOT!!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marine:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Compile response to Noah reply from Aegeri <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I think it would be rather futile as there is NO way you are going to convince me of getting 1 million odd animal species into one boat, nor is there any way you can ever make a sane argument that 300,000,000+ insect species will survive for 40 days on vegetation mats. This is one of the many reasons creationism btw is often disregarded straight away. I'd like to see the last article on Noahs ark in Nature, like, EVER. We aren't even getting into how this thing *floats* with that much weight, where the oil comes from to seal the wood (so it doesn't break apart from leaks) and many many other aspects.
In fact, there isn't a sane argument anywhere for the defence of Noahs ark, it is THAT improbable. First argument though can be one I didn't cover, how do you get the required water (for the flood) in the atmosphere without raising the pressure on the surface of the earth to such levels it would crush a human being inside out? Likewise, why isn't all the water on the surface of the earth boiling constantly (higher pressure lowers the boiling point of water if IIRC, could be other way - Believe it or not, I'm not a physicist <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). Likewise, explain how Noah, and every other animal on earth (and sea critters) suddenly and rapidly adjusted to the sudden pressure change? Bacteria I know COULD achieve this feat, Noah on the other hand would actually explode and so would most other critters. (Contemporary College Physics, Jones/Childers. If you want to look up the physics yourself. It is a readable textbook)
As I said, there isn't a sane scientific argument that can ever be put forth for noahs ark, and I've pretty much read most of it. It would essentially turn into the previous argument, I'd demand journal references, eg that there are a limited number of kinds of animals, that could reproduce the massive amount of earths diversity in 4,000 years feasibly, which is essentially impossible (from what we know of genetics) etc etc. Eventually it would generate back into that silly argument as to the evil scientific community journal conspiracy et al. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I do however think something like Noahs ark happened. It involved a man, a certain flood previously mentioned, a crudely built boat with a goat and a sheep and a LOT of exaggeration. I have a good feeling that is where it probably came from.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
great, so we are on the same page. Will shall never convince you that it did happen, and you shall never convince us that it didnt.
WTH ARE WE AREGUING ABOUT?? If a cant convice B and if B and convice A, they may as well just agree to disagree. it is the only way they will get along.
From now on, my reply will just be "you are entitled to your own opion. In my opinion, i think you are wrong, but thats just me. have a nice day."
I can see this thread is going nowhere - each topic is broiught up and reaches its eventual and predictable conclusion. A thinks B is wrong, B thinks A is wrong.
Have a nice day <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boggle the point of the discussion forums is not to convince the other side of the rightness of your arguement. We are ALL wasting our time if thats the Goal. The idea behind this thread at least is to take what I believe, and hold it up for scrutiny and criticism from other people. Thats the real test of your understanding, and if you have any flaws/things you havent thought about, then someone is sure to show you. You leave, find out if they are right or wrong. If they are right, then you're learning. If they are wrong, then you faith in your original arguement is strengthened.
I dont post to convince, I post to learn, and hopefully give someone something to think about. Couple that with the fact that I just LOVE the sound of my own voice, or the sight of my own posting, and this discussion forum is a gift from God.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT to avaoid further posting on this tangent: Marine01, what you failed to understand in that other thread, and what your currently fail to understand is that the reason scientific creationist sources are not regarded as being credable is that they arent. This is evidenced by their lack of being in Scientific Journals and being taken seriously by their peers (as Aegeri put it... more or less). There is no conspiracy against them, and this is not circular logic. They aren't being taken seriously because they have yet to produce an argument with any validity (AFAIK). Face it Marine01, you got pwned, seriously pwned, because you did not have the background nessesary to successfully argue your possition. Try not to take it so hard, as Aegeri said, there is always a bigger fish.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT To reply to skulkbait above - Absolutely. Aegeri knew FAR more about the topic at hand then I did, so as far as that arguement went, I lost - pwned is a very good description. Totally and completely pwned. However, Aegeri is a big fish in a small pond. And he argued at a level above me. For me to answer him, I would have to find sources that debated with him on the same level, which would reduce me to basically the messenger boy between Aegeri and someone who could argue it on his level. And I'm not up for that.
Now because Aegeri knew more and pwned me and my arguements, do I therefore abandon my position as a creationist - not at all. Because I know that there are people at Aegeri's level who could answer him, they just werent present at the time. I will however not let that prevent me from checking up on what he said, because if his arguement pwns the people on his level, then I'll be joining him in ridiculing them.
Now I will give you that a lot of creationist arguements are bunk - rubbish. And for that reason they wont get into any respectable scientific journal. The same can be said for some evolutionairy articles. However, when you get to the situation that Aegeri now seems to be in, which is EVERY and ALL creationist is a fool therefore I dont even need to read his material because I know its trash - then you got problems. And that is what some creationists claim is happening - they are now automatically classified as fools for daring to suggest that evolution may be wrong. Thus they are excluded from Journals, and are told the only way to prove their credibility is to get in the Journals - circular. I dont doubt some of them firmly deserve to be thrown out of journals, but I suspect that any decent ones are being discriminated against.
So I do understand skulk, and I do admit it - Aegeri was the clear victor there. And now I've hijacked my own thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know thats ripped straight from editted postings above, but I'd hate to think I gave the impression of a really sore loser, so I'm reposting it here so no one misses it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
That said, let my hijacking be the final hijacking please.
Aegeri, if thats the way you feel then I wont post a reply to Noah's ark - but as I said above, I find it worrying that you feel you can discount their arguements without actually having seen them, and be confident beyond reasonable doubt that they are obviously wrong.
And Twex, I'm pretty sure its John 3:16. My father is heavily into Christian Apologetics, and has a mass of books under the house about it. I've never actually read it, but I do remember picking it up, asking Dad what it was about and laughing when he told me. Hrrrmmmmmm now I'm starting to wonder if it is precisely John 3:16........ Maybe its not.....
*licks fingers - opens notepad*
Crosses off reply to Aegeri, puts down call Dad, ask about Book
If any mod would like to merge this with my post above, I would be much obliged.
EDIT well edit works for this post anyway.
Have a read of <a href='http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199607/0167.html' target='_blank'>THIS</a>, its a really generous rebuttal of Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Its not so much a rebuttal as a friendly review, giving him credit where his material actually has merit, and pointing out areas where his logic/consistency isnt too flash.
I actually haven't seen that before. Most of what I've previously argued against, seen argued against is from GiG, and what generally tends to come up in arguments ad infinitum.
I may have/may not have seen it though. It actually has been nearly a year since I last had this particular tangent (which was mostly physics, which would explain why I don't remember it nicely).
It seems that in ancient texts, especially compilations like the Bible, inconsistencies can actually provide proof of authenticity. Now when I first heard that, my first impulse was BS! But it actually works out.
The first four books of the New Testament are all telling pretty much exactly the same story. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and possibly John II, I cant believe this I have a Bible not 3 feet away and I cant even be stuffed reaching down to grab it) are all retelling the same events. They all claim to be independent eyewitnesses, or at least the copying down of the telling of eyewitnesses. Now some of them actually have certain events occuring before others, while another book will have those events back to front. So I thought, AHHA - inconsistency. However, not so. It is excellent proof that not only has the Bible NOT been edited so as to make it coherent (I mean geez if you wanted to streamline the Bible you'd have to be pretty stupid to miss stuff like that), but it also shows that the authors all had a different source for what they wrote.
Its not like they copied each other and "got their stories straight", because according to one mans remembrances, Jesus did X before Y, while according to the other man, Jesus did Y before X. One of them is wrong, but it shows they are at least separate witnesses. That adds to their credibility. And then, one author will record an event, and another author will record the same event, but in more detail. Its different, it sometimes doesnt seem to fit, but it adds to the credibility of the witnesses. Minor differences in retelling are to be expected if they really are human.
Strange..... getting it wrong makes it more likely you got it right...
Oh and I'm not ignoring Aegeri, I just replied to him in a pm so as to not further my own hijacking of my own thread.
Since when did God allow the slaughtering of animals?
He doesn't. Holding dominion implies responsible treatment of your subjects.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good, you agree with me on one point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE
I take it that this is still a sin. Killing anything is a sin.
No, it isn't. Unlawful murder is a sin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlawful? Unlawful for who? God? Government? What law? Please.. tell me. I would hope it isn't the government's law, because then you'd be fundamentally admitting that man's law is more important than God's law. I'll assume you meant God's law. Isn't the definition of "murder" is killing something? There was nothing false about that premise. Look closer next time before pretending like you know what you're talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE
So a true christian wouldn't eat meat, right?
Christians can eat whatever they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes? Proof? You have yet to prove me wrong on this point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE
Do you see where I'm getting this? Reductum ad absurdum for those of you that know latin.
Reductio ad absurdum. And you need correct premises for it to work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Giving one-liners does not disprove anything. Try again with some real evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
So a true christian wouldn't eat meat, right?
Christians can eat whatever they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes? Proof? You have yet to prove me wrong on this point.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i am a christian and i eat meat. i have proved it - when peter was on the roof, a sheet ladend with pigs and other animals came down from heaven and God said "kill and eat" therefore, since God commaned him to eat meat, eating meat must be alright.
No, the definition of murder is <a href='http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/murder' target='_blank'>this</a>:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->unlawful premeditated killing of a human being<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Executing criminals, killing animals, killing in self-defense or killing enemy soldiers in a war is not murder and subject to different rules.
Hmm, are you including the aquatic animal species? Because that's quite a few of them.
And insects...I'm not sure since I'm not a biologist, but I would argue more against the water levels rising above the mountains rather than the survival of insects.
I am going to try and be both minded, scientific and religious. I believe that the bible isn't perfect, there are translation flaws here and there and some scientifical errors that are hidden in this monstrous manuscript. For example: there is a passage in the bible that says the Earth is the center of everything and the heavens surround it. Point being, people thought the Earth was the center of the universe, because they thought God was perfect. I forgot what quote described this kind of situation very well, but Galileo said something along the lines that God gave us knowledge, eyes, a brain, and the whole package to use it to our very best and to find out the unknown; so why restrict people from using what God gave us.
Faith and reason do not work very well together.
Premise #1: God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-righteous.
Premise #2: God allows earthquakes, hunger, suffering.
Conclusion: God cannot be all-righteous to create evil.
If you claim God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-righteous, then you can't say God can create evil. If he created evil knowingly, he isn't all-good and all-righteous. If he didn't know he was creating evil, he isn't all-knowing. If he couldn't prevent it, then he isn't all-powerful.
God didnt create evil, man allowed evil into this world with the fall. God doesnt like evil and he will one day put a stop to it, but until then, God has show un even more of his perfect self by sending his son to die for us. Without evil, we wouldnt know God. Evil is the best way of God getting humans closer to him
God is omnipotentm which is why he will put a stop to evil, he is all loving, which is why he sent his sone to die for us, and Evil does exist so God can show his true grace and mercy.
next question
God didnt create evil, man allowed evil into this world with the fall. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I think the point is that any which way you slice it, God allowed the potential for evil to exist, and allows it to run rampant now.
If you believe God created us, and we created evil, then indirectly God is responsible for that evil.
point 1 If you created a robot, and programmed it so that all it could every say is "i love you", that isnt love. If your gf/wife loves you because she chooses to, that is love. For God to have a relationship with us humans (because that is why we were created) he had to give us choice.
point 2 what good is a choice with only one option? If i show you 2 squares, and ask you which of thse shapes is your favourite, you have no choice. you have to say a square, because that is the only choice. If i show you a circle and a square, then you can choose - you may say that a square is your favourite, but you may decide that a circle is your favourite. God is deeply upset that many people choose the circle instead of the square, but for the people who choose the square, he know that they choose it because they want to, not because they have no other choice.
In short: God allowed choice, and, yes, this meant allowing evil, but it was man who chose the circle instead of the square asnd brought evil and suffering into the world. If adam and eve hadn't eaten the friut, they would still be perfect, but they did, so we aren't
Choice was the only way to allow us to have a true relationship with God, and because of evil, he can now show us his mercy and grace.
God didnt create evil, man allowed evil into this world with the fall. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I think the point is that any which way you slice it, God allowed the potential for evil to exist, and allows it to run rampant now.
If you believe God created us, and we created evil, then indirectly God is responsible for that evil. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well God created what we today call Satan, who as most of us know (maybe not) was an angel named Lucifer and decided to rebel against the Throne and was expelled into Hell. God being all knowing knew that Lucifer would rebell even before creating him or any other angels, so yes, God is very directly responsible for evil, and Hell, and Satan.
For further proof God knew Adam and Eve would fall to temptation, therefore God knew man would be sinners and so God knowingly created man with the ability to sin.
...
In short: God allowed choice, and, yes, this meant allowing evil, but it was man who chose the circle instead of the square asnd brought evil and suffering into the world. If adam and eve hadn't eaten the friut, they would still be perfect, but they did, so we aren't
Choice was the only way to allow us to have a true relationship with God, and because of evil, he can now show us his mercy and grace. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is though, am I way off the mark if I compare this to lets say:
A fireman that deliberately starts a fire, then saves people so that they might know him/ praise him ?
Or let's refine this,
A fireman that gives a child a match (knowing the child will give into temptation) who then starts a fire and then has to rely on the fireman to save people so that they might know him / praise him ?
It seems like a contradiction to what I would expect from a loving/secure God. Why not allow neutrality/good and no evil ?
Oh - and that book written about the comma WAS John 1:3, not John 3:16. Stupid me, I should have known straight off that there is no translation problems with any major Christian tennent, especially one as critical as John 3:16.
And while I'm waiting, short search on Google yeilded THIS - just to help anyone (like me) who doesnt particulairly follow the AFE. This is the Christian apologists rebuttal/their take tho. <a href='http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/antithesis/v2n2/ant_v2n2_evil.html' target='_blank'>The AFE</a>
Evil is not necessary to understand good though. Neutrality is enough.
Example:
You see somebody getting beaten up by gangsters:
Evil : Wait for them to leave and rob the beaten up guy.
Neutral: Don't get involved at all.
Good: Do something to help
Just realized this argument starts out with an evil act...hmm... so back to the drawing board. Try reading my further thoughts down below.
Might I suggest we lay down a philosophical definition of Good before we go further?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well God created what we today call Satan, who as most of us know (maybe not) was an angel named Lucifer and decided to rebel against the Throne and was expelled into Hell. God being all knowing knew that Lucifer would rebell even before creating him or any other angels, so yes, God is very directly responsible for evil, and Hell, and Satan.
For further proof God knew Adam and Eve would fall to temptation, therefore God knew man would be sinners and so God knowingly created man with the ability to sin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would seem that the ability to sin comes about with choice or free will. So yes, you could say God gave Man the ability for evil. Does that mean he made a mistake? I dont think so. As that article said "A being is not morally culpable in allowing preventable evil if he has a "morally sufficient reason" for so doing."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's suppose that the anti-theist objects that the theist has not demonstrated that God has this morally sufficient reason. The theist can counter this by arguing that the anti-theist cannot even generate the so-called problem of evil.
To talk meaningfully about morality the anti-theist must assume that an objective foundation for morality exists. If he does not (that is, if he is what is sometimes called a moral subjectivist ), he must logically admit that one foundation is as good as any other. Thus, he cannot object to a foundation on which God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil; even worse, he cannot even justify the premise, "Evil exists." If, on the other hand, he claims that an objective foundation for ethics exists, we must press him to give his reason for this. Can there be an objective foundation without a Supreme Lawgiver?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I know on these boards that relative morality is pretty much the accepted norm, but in philosophy land where the AFE comes from, its a really tough problem. The article then follows with Kant etcs attempts to lay down rules for morality that apply to the whole of mankind without the need of a Supreme Lawgiver.
To me, the bible is a compilation of stories from long ago. Nothing more. Some of it is based on actual historical events. I believe without a doubt that there was a great flood... just a local one. Particularly, the Black Sea in Eurasia. If you look closely at the arrangement of this Sea, there is but a small little section in Turkey where it joins with the Mediterranean Sea. I believe that this was actually continuous, and not a hole at all. This area flooded after the end of the last ice age, which was 12,000 years ago. The ice age locked up a tremendous amount of water. Thus, most areas that are today below sea level were actually dry. The Black Sea area is very close to the areas most people consider the dawn of civilization. That area was most likely an epicenter of human activity. The entire Black Sea area was essentially a large basin, like a bowl. As the ice melted over a period of hundreds or even thousands of years, the oceans and Seas rose higher and higher. This put a tremendous amount of pressure on the walls of this basin. The basin walls just could not withhold that pressure forever, and it broke open. This flooded the entire Black Sea basin. Some villages may have been caught in a particularly low area and all its inhabitants may have perished.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/' target='_blank'>Black Sea underwater discoveries</a>
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm' target='_blank'>The Truth Behind Noah's Flood</a>
One needs only to look at references to a great flood in all kinds of different religions and past civilizations to understand that it was universal knowledge and a well-told story. As with all stories, people add their own flavoring to it. As time goes on, the true account of what happened disappears as those affected and their succeeding generations die off. Thus you have the completely silly Christian story today of Noah building this giant ark, filling it with every beast known to man, watching as god brought about rain to wipe away all the "bad people" he'd created, then watch that rain from just 40 days and 40 nights somehow fill the entire planet so much that no dry land was accessible... I mean, the story just makes absolutely no scientific sense whatsoever. There was a historical event that triggered it, however.
The stories in the bible were written in the pre-scientific age. Therefore they had no basis for understanding why things happen the way they do. Everyone thought the world was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Completely stupid to think that way today, but back 2000 years ago everyone (sans the few people who might have questioned it) accepted the general consensus understanding of the world. The stars are god's lights for us at night. Blah blah. Today not even creationists are stupid enough to think the Earth is flat. Why then, do they continue to believe these non-sensical stories in the bible as absolute truth?
The reason is very simple. It's called faith. Faith convinces a lot of people to do stupid things. Islamic extremists believe that by strapping bombs to their chests and blowing themselves up to kill the enemy, allah will reward them with countless virgins once they reach their form of heaven. Even Christians used their faith in God to support their holy crusades, massacring countless Muslims to "cleanse" Europe.
It's amazing to see the struggles from almost a millenia ago are still being acted upon today. Religion, unfortunately, is a wholly necessary evil in modern society. Without it, people would go crazy trying to understand why they exist at all. With it, of course, we have an entire history of bloodshed and brutality. Look at Communism and its attempts at atheism... it doesn't work on a large scale. Those of us who are more open-minded and logical towards our existence in this universe and the understanding of how we came to be are unfortunately vastly in the minority.
** Nuked this part by request ***
Might I suggest we lay down a philosophical definition of Good before we go further? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it would be helpful to perhaps explore what exactly constitutes "Good".
It's interesting to learn about that law in Oz. I'm assuming "fail to act" does not necessarily imply that you would have to get physically involved in such a confrontation ?
I see where you are coming from also, and I think my example has its limitations. Most people probably would consider the "neutral" option to be a "bad" thing.
Let's get back onto the philosophical definition of good. I would suggest that "good" implies "beneficial" and "do no harm to others". A "good" act seems to be one that aids/helps rather than destroys/harms.
So I suppose I was hinting at a world where we only chose to help or not help, would be better than a world where we choose to harm/ help / not help.
Why did God then opt for the harm option ? Surely you could understand the value of helping by having the choice of not helping, without having the choice of harming ? Does any of this make sense lol <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Gonna check back in a few guys... I have that Astarte/Virgin Mary link to persue Marine <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ahhhh but beneficial and "does not harm others" have problems with them. We lock up criminals, and that is not Good for the criminal, its Good for society. We bring something unbeneficial on a person because society has deemed it for the Greater good. So is condemning a violent criminal to jail Good? It's preemptive action ie stopping him from commiting further crimes, but it contradicts your definition of Good. Its causing Bad upon one person in the name of Good. To carry your definition of good to its natural conclusion, you cannot punish anyone, because punishment is inflicting harm/bad stuff upon someone. And that means you are not doing a Good thing.
In philosophical terms, Good and Bad are covered under the idea of Morality. Good is what is morally right. Bad is what is morally wrong. Thus what we are looking for is something to ground morality in. Subjective morality (ie a morality without any foundation or base) is a proven fallacy, and thus philosophers attempt to find a Base for their morality. I can see this is going to be pretty tough laying down a definition of Good and Bad.
WHOA! How did we get onto Bush here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Evisc mate you got a bit carried away there, but never mind. I'd really appreciate it if you'd nuke your last bit, especially since statements like Americans are incredibly stupid, gullible, arrogant, and apathetic aren't going to go down too well with the moderators. And I'd hate to report my own post.
The Bible talks about the breaking up of the "Great fountains of the deep". I think the suggestion is that the water was under the ground, and then God started a cataclysim (sp) that brought the water to the top. If the Earth was perfectly smooth at that time, then that would cause massive flooding, all over. It wasnt supposed to be all rain. At least take the time to have a look at creationist articles, you might find them interesting, you might find them garbage, but at least you have read them and can see where they are coming from.
Argh another Crusades comment. Countless muslims? The following quote is a military historian answering in a forum, so its not to be taken as a solid source, but I'm going to take him at face value. Bear in mind this is a discussion on military history in a secular forum, not some religious forum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some scholarly estimates place the Crusades (1095-1291) causing the deaths of approximately 1,000,000. The main problem with statistics from any historical event is that you become mired in a litany of issues. The major obstacles the scholar has to overcome are:
1. Determining if the numbers are inflated for political/religious reasons. (i.e. A small force defeats a much larger force "proving" that God is on their side. Or battle casualties are decreased to save face.)
2. Determine if the numbers of a particular army could be supported logistically. At times, medieval armies have been chronicled as being 500,000 or more. This would be an impossible task because the simple task of feeding such and army would be a miraculous achievement.
3. Gauge the civilian population at the time of a particular campaign. Figures are lacking when dealing with population statistics in the Levant, but the fact remains that each Crusade was an orgy of bloodshed.
4. Based on contemporary documents, determine if it would be possible for a certain number of combatants to be killed and have an army continue to campaign. Reinforcements during the Crusades were difficult in obtaining.
5. Determine the actual size of a fortification to get an estimate of the true number of defenders / inhabitants.
I'm sure that there are many other concerns that arise when trying to estimate the casualties of the Crusades, but these are the only ones I can think of at this time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
About a million, and this is the best that can be thrown at religion to prove its evil and starts war and bloodshed? Stalin butchered his millions, Mao the same, and these guys were athiests. OMG Atheism starts war/killings/murder. Rubbish. Human nature starts war/murder. Religion is just the justifier, not the reason.
My reference to modern day U.S. policy of global domination is relevant. The <b>vast</b> majority of Americans believe in some form of God, and they believe in (more or less) the Creationist point of view. The administration uses this to its advantage. Pick someone to go up against, the Muslims, and convince the public that there's these crazy people "over there somewhere" that have done something terrible and horrific to offend our God and our way of life, because they don't like what we do or how we live. It's a classic "us vs them" fight, and religion has everything to do with it.
Back on the flood thing... then I guess all that water that was stored under the ground that rose up is now back under the ground, or something? Or is that the oceans? If you don't take the Bible literally, then you're manipulating it to match your own beliefs. Creationists should stick to their idealistic beliefs and faith and leave the real science to those without hidden agendas. I've tried reading that stuff, and every time they try and counter some scientific explanation, they always say "well that doesn't match what my bible tells me, so it must be wrong." They are intractable and completely closed-minded. Nothing you say or do or prove will ever be sufficient because they expect the answer to be exactly what they believe. It's called faith.
My cousins were raised to be by-the-letter Creationists. They believe every word in the bible for fact. Therefore when they were kids they would always ask "where are the pictures of men with dinosaurs?" Since God created all animals in one day, and man was obviously there at the time, then man and dinosaur must have co-existed. We've dug up the bones of dinosaurs, and no one is contesting that they must be from animals, so... um... where are the pictures? They just have no clue. Too bad they didn't have archaeologists 2000 years ago when all of these stories were being documented. They may have included some kind of alternate explanation for why there are extinct animals that lived long long ago.
The bible is a good bed-time story book. Read it to your kids to teach them good moral values. But it is no more true than a book of fairy tales.
Okay I'm back. I'm not going to try and defend creationists in the thread, because it will turn into creation vs evolution argument. The idea is that now all that water is in the oceans yeah.
And I've just realised that we've taken this whole thing seriously off topic with the Argument from Evil. That has little to do with the accuracy and consistency of the Bible, and really deserves its own thread. If we try and argue that here we are going to get bogged down in philosophy, and this thread will seriously lose its way. So if we could stop discussing that in this thread I would really appreciate it. I'm more then happy to carry on with it in a separate thread.