Young Earth Creationism (the Six day theory), meets the big bang and Evolution...

[dburkhead]

The torture of that place is the separation from God and the despair of one's own choices.

The "punishment" of residing in eternity apart from God is not based on the finite lifespan of the created or the finite perception of good and bad, but the infinite chasm created when one offends in any manner against an infinitely holy standard. Neither relative goodness nor time bear on this standard of perfection.

The infinite crime must be judged with infinite justice.

That's my take.

The "sinned against an infinite god" argument I've heard before. It doesn't work.

Let's see, what you are saying is that since God is infinite the "crime" of not believing in him is therefore infinite? So the power and, let's call it wealth, of the "victim" of the crime determines the severity of the crime? God is infinite therefore snubbing Him calls for infinite punishment? In much the same way that stealing $10 from Bill Gates is a much more serious crime than stealing $10 from me.

Maybe Bill Gates would find that an attractive approach, but I'm afraid I can't buy into that. Mind you, I'm not terribly inclined to buy the flip side, the "he (the victim) can afford it therefore the crime is less severe" argument either, but infinite punishment for what amounts to indifference or maybe snubbing?

Even if the "suffering" is "despair over one's own choices" there really needs to come a time when one has suffered enough. A time when "Okay, you've been in time-out long enough. You can come back to the family room."

I mean, I could see a "you didn't pay any attention to me for the 73 years you were alive so you're going to stay in outer darkness for 73 years and a day as a punishment."

But forever?

Justice?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[mainjet]

Me, I look for the evidence. I recognize that I have biases toward "comforting solutions" (it would be nice to believe that existence continues after mortal life, but the Universe is under no compulsion to provide answers based on "it would be nice") and try to compensate.

dburkhead you make good arguments and I respect what you are saying.

I know that you may not believe the Bilbe or what it has to say. So quoting from it may not be the best approach in your eyes but I feel that it is better for me to give what I believe is Gods word rather than try to explain Him in my words.

This is a sections of Romans 1:17-1:23 is one thing that really spoke to me.

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown [it] to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools,

and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--

I don't try to explain everything about God or the world. There is a lot of "evidence" that points to the world be older than it is. But it is by faith that I trust God created it. Many people say that this is a weak position and infact, even a stupid one. I will accept that and continue on with my belief by faith.

While you have good arguments and you very eloquently present them, I cannot except them because deep within me I know the truth.

I cannot even look at my hand or the construction of the human eye without knowing that God created me. I cannot look at the sky or outer space and the solar system and know that these things didn't just explode into existance and then, over billions of years, transform into what they are today.

Since we are in a gun forum I will say it this way - Do you believe that if you laid your gun on the table and came back in 1 billion years it would have evolved into somthing better than it was when you left it? Would it realize that in order to survive it was going to need some legs to get out of there?

I say this with all due respect to your arguments.

I really believe that God has shown us enough to believe the rest by faith. To trust Him and not ourselves.

 

[ATM]

dburkhead,

You've got the crime wrong. You've placed not believing in Him where not maintaining His standard of perfection belongs.

I'll play it out as a conversation for your amusement:

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Fell short? By how far? For how long?
Doesn't matter. Fell short. Sentence is death. It's in the rules.
Can someone pay my sentence for me?
Sure. But this is an infinite judgement ('cause I'm an infinite judge who gives infinite sentences) so it will require an infinitely pure sacrifice.
Jesus! Who is worthy and would willingly sacrifice himself in my place?
Exactly.

 

[jblomenberg16]

dburkhead,

You've got the crime wrong. You've placed not believing in Him where not maintaining His standard of perfection belongs.

I'll play it out as a conversation for your amusement:

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Fell short? By how far? For how long?
Doesn't matter. Fell short. Sentence is death. It's in the rules.
Can someone pay my sentence for me?
Sure. But this is an infinite judgement ('cause I'm an infinite judge who gives infinite sentences) so it will require an infinitely pure sacrifice.
Jesus! Who is worthy and would willingly sacrifice himself in my place?
Exactly.

Law and Gospel summed up very concisly. Good job!


So, were we talking about evolution vs. creation, or was this another thread that took a turn for the ever popular "Is there a God / Is there an afterlife" thread?

Not that its a bad thing, since they are all intertwined and come down to faith. Just wondering if there would be anymore healthy debate of the facts out there regarding the origin of our world.

 

[dburkhead]

This site makes for interesting reading concerning creation-based science.

The Institute for Creation Research

Excellent people with degrees verifying their findings on factual data, and showing many about the Bible, correct and accurate.

I've been through that stuff before. Even if one allowed every "criticism" of Evolution to be accurate it still would not be justification for either Creationism or "Intelligent Design" (which is really just "Creationism-lite").

Still, I'm a bit bored today, so I'll go through it again:

From their "evidence for creation"

"God does exist"
Problem one: Assertion is not proof.

I've seen plenty of "proofs" of God over the years and every one contains one or more logical fallacies or outright untruths.
Under that one we have:
"Cause and Effect"
This is basically the argument from cause. It's the watchmaker argument--if there is a watch, there must be a watchmaker. And so "God" is invoked as the ultimate watchmaker or the "first cause." However, the problem comes in the follow-up question "who created God"? Either something created God (which leads to the next question and an "it's turtles all the way down") or God was not created. If, however, God was not created then you have just completely undone the argument because you've admitted that something can exist without having been created. A "cause" can exist without being an effect. At most you've applied the label "God" to whatever actually was the "first cause." It does not say whether that "first cause" was the Christian God or the Norse metting of ice and fire in Ginungagap or Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" or the "Cosmic Egg" of some forms of the Big Bang theory or something no one has even imagined yet. It's just applying a label without defining it.

"The Triune Universe"
Basically, what claptrap. First off, Space and Time are not separate so we're at two rather than 3. The "difference" between time and the other three dimensions is of no more significance than that a caveman might have considered between "up-down" against "front back" and "left right" (his ability to move is much more constrained in one than in the others).

The above two really fill me with forboding for what's to come. The first two start out with logical fallacies and a complete misunderstanding of physical theory.

"Design and Purpose"
"Humans are unique from every other living creature in the world." To which the answer is "Orangutans are unique from every other living creature in the world." "Bottlenose dolphins are unique from every other living creature in the world." "Gila Monsters are unique from every other living creature in the world." "Anglerfish are unique from every other living creature in the world."

At best it's a statement of point of view--since the writer is human (one would presume) then one has to note just a tad bit of bias in the statement. At worst, it's circular logic (a logical fallacy).

And under this there are a bunch of "God caused X" which are basically asserted. But assertions are not proof.

Then back up to the first level
"Evidence for Truth"
Well, evidence, yes, but not leading to the conclusions they would like.

"Natural Laws"
And under this we have

"The Foundation of Science is Absolute Truth" which, as any real scientist would tell you is absolute bunk. Oh, wait a minute, they're playing word games. The foundation of science is that their is a "real world" out there that, at some level, behaves consistently. We experiment to find out how it behaves and craft theories to codify that behavior but "absolute truth" is a sham.

"Science tests Subjective Experience against Absolute Truth" and we've just dealt with this one above.

"The Laws of Science Requires a Creator" and once again the attempted proof by assertion. Assertion is not truth. They make much of how "amazing" it is that the language of mathematics match the laws of science. There's nothing particularly amazing about it. Although mathematics is generally rather abstract the people who codified the "rules" of mathematics did so based on observation of the world. When somebody codified the reflexive property, it was somebody who saw that if two things were the same in the real world, they were the same whichever order you looked at them in ( if a = b then b = a). And so on. If you get into real theoretical math, you find that people start playing with the postulates and come up with forms of math that do not match up with the real world.

People who live in the "real world" come up with a form of mathmatics that matches the real world. quell surprise.

None of that requires a "creator" despite the sites assertion that it does.

And so we back up a level and get to "Human Conscience."
Universal? Excuse me? Has the author of this piece ever been any further outside of town than Aunt Bertha's Seminary and Bible School? While the claim that societies prefer "good" to "evil" that's the fallacy of equivocation since what societies consider to be "good" and "evil" vary tremendously over time. For the Norse "going a-viking" was considered "good." For the people they raided, not so much. The only things that approach being "universal" are things that are entirely pragmatic--a society that thought that casual murder between its own people was a "good" thing would soon be extinct, evolution in action. So basically all they have is that what societies favor--whatever it may happen to be--is called "good" and what they disfavor is called "evil." No evidence of anything but that some choices work better than others.

"Acknowledges a spiritual part of life."
So people try to find explanations for what they don't understand? That's really all this comes down to. Again, no great surprise and not evidence for anything other than that humans are pretty good at finding patterns even when there are no patterns (case studies of people seeing phases and objects in random "noise").

Recognizes Man's Authority over Animals and Earth
Again, that shows a bit of self-bias. I bet the Lion recognizes it's authority over the Gazelle and the veldt (although the Cape Buffalo may be of a different opinion). Again not evidence of anything really.

Desire for Justice
Another "let's take what people/societies desire, however different they may be from each other, and call it 'justice.'" Labeling without defining and again the only real "universals" are pragmatic.

I think we've established the point on their more esoteric claims, let's skip down to "Science verifies the creation."

"The physical sciences."
Under which we have
"The universe was created" Again assertions are not proof.
But under that we have:
"The universe has a center." That is complete nonsense. It comes from not understanding the "balloon" analogy of the expanding universe. Simply put, every point in the universe is expanding from every other point. Any point in the Universe would see about equally in all directions and would see the other galaxies flying away from them just as we see them flying away from us. If they could actually do the math that they touted up above as evidence of creation they would see that.

"The universe was created powerfully."
Yeah, there was a lot of energy involved in the origin of the Universe. Doesn't say anything about where that energy came from. And no, science doesn't know where it came from either but "I don't know" is not the same as "God did it" nor does it justify that claim, and it certainly isn't evidence for that claim.

Oh, and the "explanation" of fusion in the Sun is nonsense too.


"The Universe was created recently."
Their comet analogy is another case of complete nonsense. First off, the solar system is a lot more recent than the Universe itself so even if the argument held it would only say that the Solar System were young, not that the Universe was. But the argument doesn't hold. Comets, once they fall into elliptical orbits that bring them close to the sun, do have a finite life span. In fact, we've seen comets "expire" into meteor swarms. However, comets can "live" for literally billions of years in the oort cloud, until the various pulls of the planets and of distant stars alters their orbits--which are always being changed slightly by those forces--sufficiently so that one starts on its way in toward the sun. Most such go tailing off for deep space again not to be seen for thousands or more years but occasionally one will encounter a larger planet (Jupiter is a common culprit for this) as it comes in and will be caught in a shorter period orbit (like Haley's 76 year period). So, no, the existence of comets is not the evidence for a short term life that the authors of that site would have you believe.

As for the "no observational evidence" of the Oort cloud. Actually, there is. Nobody has seen a cometoid in the oort in a telescope but a) we get comets that come into the inner system that have never been here before and b) at least four actual objects have been found. Since these are right at the very edge of detectability (shining only in reflected light and very far away from the sun) that four were found is a pretty good indicator that there are lots more out there. If you dug a four shovelfuls of dirt out of a mountain at random spots and found a diamond in each, would you assume they were the only four diamonds on that mountain?

"The universe is stable"
None of the subheadings there have any real bearing on whether or not the Universe was created.

"The Earth was created for life."
Reversal of cause and effect. They take the position that the Earth is miraculously suited for life but that's exactly backward. Once you have a planet on which life can evolve (and the Universe appears to be filled with planets--we keep finding them wherever we turn instruments capable of detecting them), then the life that will evolve will be suited for that planet. That's kind of what evolution is. The life that's not as well suited to the environment dies off, leaving the more well suited.

I figure I'm probably well into tl:dr territory here but the main point is that every. single. point. that they use as "evidence" for creation is flawed either based on errors in factual evidence or on logical fallacies. It may sound convincing to someone who is not familiar with the details of the subjects in question, but it is hugely flawed. Could they get "scientists" to sign off on it? Sure they could, just like the Kyoto people could find 1100 people to sign a "concensus" on AGW or Sagan could find a "union of concerned scientists" to sign onto his "nuclear winter" myth. That does not make the "science" sound, or even science at all.

 

[dburkhead]

dburkhead,

You've got the crime wrong. You've placed not believing in Him where not maintaining His standard of perfection belongs.

I'll play it out as a conversation for your amusement:

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Fell short? By how far? For how long?
Doesn't matter. Fell short. Sentence is death. It's in the rules.
Can someone pay my sentence for me?
Sure. But this is an infinite judgement ('cause I'm an infinite judge who gives infinite sentences) so it will require an infinitely pure sacrifice.
Jesus! Who is worthy and would willingly sacrifice himself in my place?
Exactly.

So God sets an impossible standard, one that literally no human being (except God himself) has ever met, and I'm supposed to be happy that if I just properly abase myself he'll commute the sentence?

Sorry, but when everyone is condemned then talking about what "crime" they may have committed to be condemned is irrelevant. The "crime" is existing. The only differentiation is between "believing" (that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life). Thus regardless of what is claimed the real crime is "not believing."

And, of course, he gets away with it because he's too powerful for anyone to bring him to task.

Well, maybe so. Maybe that's what I'll see in the end. But I certainly wouldn't call it "good" and I most certainly wouldn't call it "justice."

Frankly, for all I know, Josef Mengele had a sincere conversion and repentance while he was out there swimming and was on his way back in to confess when he had done and turn himself in to the authorities when he had the heart attack and drowned. That would put him in heaven with you (I'll presume) while I end up in that other place with the likes of such evildoers as Mahatma Ghandi and Horatius (of "Horatius at the Gates fame).

 

[ATM]

So God sets an impossible standard, one that literally no human being (except God himself) has ever met, and I'm supposed to be happy that if I just properly abase myself he'll commute the sentence?
Happy or not, a shallow approximation of the truth as I understand it.

Sorry, but when everyone is condemned then talking about what "crime" they may have committed to be condemned is irrelevant.
Yes.

The "crime" is existing. The only differentiation is between "believing" (that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life). Thus regardless of what is claimed the real crime is "not believing."
You're merging the crime, plea, sentencing and execution.

And, of course, he gets away with it because he's too powerful for anyone to bring him to task.
It's good to be God.

Well, maybe so. Maybe that's what I'll see in the end. But I certainly wouldn't call it "good" and I most certainly wouldn't call it "justice."
Granted, it doesn't match our version from our perspective.

Frankly, for all I know, Josef Mengele had a sincere conversion and repentance while he was out there swimming and was on his way back in to confess when he had done and turn himself in to the authorities when he had the heart attack and drowned. That would put him in heaven with you (I'll presume) while I end up in that other place with the likes of such evildoers as Mahatma Ghandi and Horatius (of "Horatius at the Gates fame).
Once again injecting good vs. evil when that isn't the standard. We all naturally want to fall back to this. What was the name of the tree which, when the fruit was eaten, caused the standard to become so impossible to attain? Oh, I remember now!

Either belief takes some faith. Evidence alone is inconclusive. The faith I choose has required less of a personal leap for me. Certain infinite concepts confound logic and math but they violate neither.

Sorry to have strayed off topic.

 

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by dburkhead
So God sets an impossible standard, one that literally no human being (except God himself) has ever met, and I'm supposed to be happy that if I just properly abase myself he'll commute the sentence?
Happy or not, a shallow approximation of the truth as I understand it.

Shallow or not the question is whether it's correct in its essentials.

Sorry, but when everyone is condemned then talking about what "crime" they may have committed to be condemned is irrelevant.
Yes.

The "crime" is existing. The only differentiation is between "believing" (that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life). Thus regardless of what is claimed the real crime is "not believing."
You're merging the crime, plea, sentencing and execution.

And God is merging judge, jury, executioner, lawmaker, defense, prosecution, appeals court, and bailiff (and bailiff's dog for all I know) in one self-serving mix. Your point?

And, of course, he gets away with it because he's too powerful for anyone to bring him to task.
It's good to be God.

Too powerful to be brought to justice does not make it right.

Well, maybe so. Maybe that's what I'll see in the end. But I certainly wouldn't call it "good" and I most certainly wouldn't call it "justice."
Granted, it doesn't match our version from our perspective.

And you don't consider that God's perspective might not be just a tad, um biased?

Human: "Hey! That's not right"
God: "I say it is."
Human: "But...."
God: "Shut up or I'll smite you."
Human: "Oh, well, when you put it that way...."

Frankly, for all I know, Josef Mengele had a sincere conversion and repentance while he was out there swimming and was on his way back in to confess when he had done and turn himself in to the authorities when he had the heart attack and drowned. That would put him in heaven with you (I'll presume) while I end up in that other place with the likes of such evildoers as Mahatma Ghandi and Horatius (of "Horatius at the Gates fame).
Once again injecting good vs. evil when that isn't the standard. We all naturally want to fall back to this. What was the name of the tree which, when the fruit was eaten, caused the standard to become so impossible to attain? Oh, I remember now!

And why are the standards impossible to attain? Who set those standards? We're supposed to be the "children of God." Well, if I raised my children the way He raises the human race....

No, good and evil isn't the standard. To be blunt, the standard is "who strokes God's ego" (I had a harsher phrase in mind, but I'm trying to keep it reasonably polite.)

Either belief takes some faith. Evidence alone is inconclusive. The faith I choose has required less of a personal leap for me. Certain infinite concepts confound logic and math but they violate neither.

Sorry to have strayed off topic.

Which belief? My "belief" can be summed up in three words: "I don't know." Is there some prime cause to the Universe possessing intelligence (best definition for "god" that I have to hand)? I don't know. I have some pretty clear ideas about certain human conceptions about what that prime cause might be like, but that's based on the content of the concept (internal inconsistencies like piling "free will" on top of an omnipotent and omniscient creator deity are a big red flag), but as a general thing those three words work.

But here's the thing, before I'll accept that I should move off those three words for any particular belief system I'll need more than just "I believe" or "Those people believe" or "some folks a long time ago believed and wrote it down" before I'll accept anything along that line as appropriate either for public policy for inclusion as "science." Without that, then in order to give credence to the Judeo-Christian creation story then I'd have to also give it to the Hindu, to the Shinto, to the Sumerian, to the Egyptian, to the Greek, to the Norse, to the Aztec, to the Maya, to the Cherokee, to the Inuit, to the Yanomamo, to the !Kung, and on and on and on.

Leave science to the science classes. If your religion is actually correct, science will get there. Science contains self-correcting mechanisms (the first question one asks of a theory, indeed, the defining question that makes it a theory rather than a cute idea is "how would I know if it were wrong").

 

[Boilers]

It is my understanding that Jesus has given those that have not heard about him ON Earth (in the underworld) the chance to hear him speak of his salvation. And since that time was timeless, it is effectively good for all lost souls. Again, even those future ones, since it was a timeless descent.

 

[dburkhead]

It is my understanding that Jesus has given those that have not heard about him ON Earth (in the underworld) the chance to hear him speak of his salvation. And since that time was timeless, it is effectively good for all lost souls. Again, even those future ones, since it was a timeless descent.

That's an interesting take (and has some reminiscence to the tradition I grew up in). I won't go into the question of whether there's any biblical basis for it (yeah, he went to preach, but that it was timeless and included also future souls). So, is everyone given this "converted by Jesus" chance or only people who did not have the chance in life? If the latter, then isn't anyone who attempts to convert someone in life setting themselves up as "competition" for one generally considered one of the greatest teachers/preachers of all time (having that whole "Son of God" thing going). I mean, if some ham-fisted "preacher" on Earth fails to convert someone, or worse, turns them completely away from the idea, don't they have a legitimate complaint against that person when they might well have been converted by the afterlife teaching of Jesus if the bad preacher had simply kept his mouth shut?

 

[Boilers]

I do not begin to know the answers to all that. But I was under the general understanding that in the context of GOD's not bound by linear time, then Jesus was not just offering his salvation to the dead framed by linear time as well. So, in his perception of time, that event would stretch across all existence. I am SURE that the reality of it all is beyond my total grasp, and that is fine with me.

 

[Phil502]

"Design and Purpose"
"Humans are unique from every other living creature in the world." To which the answer is "Orangutans are unique from every other living creature in the world." "Bottlenose dolphins are unique from every other living creature in the world." "Gila Monsters are unique from every other living creature in the world." "Anglerfish are unique from every other living creature in the world."

At best it's a statement of point of view--since the writer is human (one would presume) then one has to note just a tad bit of bias in the statement. At worst, it's circular logic (a logical fallacy).

Of course humans are different from every other living creature on earth. Different in that the differences themselves are unique. Sure a dolphin is different from an ape but no other animal can come close to what we can do as a whole or in so many ways.

 

[ATM]

Shallow or not the question is whether it's correct in its essentials.
No. That perfect standard would have been our norm if we had stayed in communion with God rather than go off to do our own thing. Our own thing is what made it such a feat.


And God is merging judge, jury, executioner, lawmaker, defense, prosecution, appeals court, and bailiff (and bailiff's dog for all I know) in one self-serving mix. Your point?
Positionally speaking, none but He are even remotely qualified in His court.
However, just because one must exist in order to fall short of a standard does not make existing (or denying a plea offer) the crime.

Too powerful to be brought to justice does not make it right.
He defines justice. Not us. He has nothing higher than Himself to even swear by. Agree or not, it does actually make Him right.

And you don't consider that God's perspective might not be just a tad, um biased?

Human: "Hey! That's not right"
God: "I say it is."
Human: "But...."
God: "Shut up or I'll smite you."
Human: "Oh, well, when you put it that way...."
Reminds me of Bruce Almighty.
Biased in what way? Our only significance to Him is that He chooses to care about us. He need not respect our opinions.

And why are the standards impossible to attain? Who set those standards?
We disobeyed and it got rough. His nature set them.

We're supposed to be the "children of God." Well, if I raised my children the way He raises the human race....
That metaphor, of course, cannot be absolute.

No, good and evil isn't the standard. To be blunt, the standard is "who strokes God's ego" (I had a harsher phrase in mind, but I'm trying to keep it reasonably polite.)
Hmm... I always thought egocentric meant you considered yourself to be the center of all things. Not an admirable trait for a human but certainly befitting God. Stroking not required but acknowledging does seem to lead to worship.


Which belief? My "belief" can be summed up in three words: "I don't know."
Just discussing from differing angles of "leaning" then.

Leave science to the science classes.
And leave room for any theories not disproven?

If your religion is actually correct, science will get there. Science contains self-correcting mechanisms (the first question one asks of a theory, indeed, the defining question that makes it a theory rather than a cute idea is "how would I know if it were wrong").
2000 years later, people still wish they could debunk this cruel hoax. The investigation continues against this cute idea.

 

[dburkhead]

Of course humans are different from every other living creature on earth. Different in that the differences themselves are unique. Sure a dolphin is different from an ape but no other animal can come close to what we can do as a whole or in so many ways.

Not "so many ways," We've basically got three "survival traits" that have earned us the "human niche." Of the three we're far from "supreme" in one and we only have incremental improvements on the other two.

The first is we're a social species. We band together in cooperative groups to accomplish what one alone can't do. We're not the only species to do this, nor even the one most developed in this area. Wolves band together in packs to bring down prey too big for any one. Termite colonies are larger (in number of inhabitants) and more organized than most cities. And so on.

The second is we use language to pass information from one to another. This one is probably (jury's still out on some cases, but I think it unlikely any of those will supersede humans) an area where humans are supreme on the planet. However, we are far from the only species to use language. From the dancing language of honeybees to whalesong, lots of other species use some form of language to communicate one with another.

The third is tool use. This one has taken a beating. The idea that Humans are the only tool user died an early death. Then there was the idea that humans were the only animals to make tools, to specifically modify something so it can be used as a tool. Well, chimps and bonobos have been seen to do that in the wild (not something they were specifically taught). So far humans are the only species known to abstract that the next step--make tools to use to make other tools (classic example from paleo-anthropology was making a flake tool to be used to shave a wooden shaft to make a better spear, or bone needles to sew a pouch on a sling). But, still, that's in incremental difference rather than revolutionary.

Pretty much everything people "ooh" and "ah" about from Human accomplishment is derived from those three traits singly or in combination. What humans have done with those traits has been truly remarkable, no question about it, but that little tiny (from the size of a pinhead to a couple of inches acrosee) coral polyps could build something like the Great Barrier Reef system is also quite remarkable.

Out of all the species on the planet, that one might happen to excel in a few categories that are common to many species is nothing remarkable. Only human egotism leads one to think otherwise.

 

[jsharmon7]

"And why are the standards impossible to attain? Who set those standards?
We disobeyed and it got rough. His nature set them."

Shouldn't He have known we wouldn't obey? I struggle with the idea that He is all-knowing but we have free will. I don't see how they can possibly coexist. Otherwise we're being set up for failure by even being created. If I know that by creating you that you will fail, then...

I don't know how my text turned blue nor how I fix it. Maybe it needs oxygen.

 

[Phil502]

Not "so many ways," We've basically got three "survival traits" that have earned us the "human niche." Of the three we're far from "supreme" in one and we only have incremental improvements on the other two.

The first is we're a social species. We band together in cooperative groups to accomplish what one alone can't do. We're not the only species to do this, nor even the one most developed in this area. Wolves band together in packs to bring down prey too big for any one. Termite colonies are larger (in number of inhabitants) and more organized than most cities. And so on.

The second is we use language to pass information from one to another. This one is probably (jury's still out on some cases, but I think it unlikely any of those will supersede humans) an area where humans are supreme on the planet. However, we are far from the only species to use language. From the dancing language of honeybees to whalesong, lots of other species use some form of language to communicate one with another.

The third is tool use. This one has taken a beating. The idea that Humans are the only tool user died an early death. Then there was the idea that humans were the only animals to make tools, to specifically modify something so it can be used as a tool. Well, chimps and bonobos have been seen to do that in the wild (not something they were specifically taught). So far humans are the only species known to abstract that the next step--make tools to use to make other tools (classic example from paleo-anthropology was making a flake tool to be used to shave a wooden shaft to make a better spear, or bone needles to sew a pouch on a sling). But, still, that's in incremental difference rather than revolutionary.

Pretty much everything people "ooh" and "ah" about from Human accomplishment is derived from those three traits singly or in combination. What humans have done with those traits has been truly remarkable, no question about it, but that little tiny (from the size of a pinhead to a couple of inches acrosee) coral polyps could build something like the Great Barrier Reef system is also quite remarkable.

Out of all the species on the planet, that one might happen to excel in a few categories that are common to many species is nothing remarkable. Only human egotism leads one to think otherwise.

No one animal has the brain power to accomplish what we have. A termite hill is more organized then New York City, well maybe if all you are is a termite. How organized does it have to be. The human brain and all it's capabilities is what makes us different. Seen a chimp with a power tool lately? I see what your getting at if you break it down to it's lowest denominater maybe but I still don't agree.

 

[Denny347]

 

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by dburkhead
Shallow or not the question is whether it's correct in its essentials.
No. That perfect standard would have been our norm if we had stayed in communion with God rather than go off to do our own thing. Our own thing is what made it such a feat.

At best the decision of two individuals thousands of years ago is what made it such a feat.

If God didn't want them to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why did he put it there in the first place. Didn't he know what would happen?

One can only assume that what happened was exactly what God wanted to happen, with all the evils of the world that came with it.

Evil exists because God wants it to exist. Neither more nor less.

And God is merging judge, jury, executioner, lawmaker, defense, prosecution, appeals court, and bailiff (and bailiff's dog for all I know) in one self-serving mix. Your point?
Positionally speaking, none but He are even remotely qualified in His court.
However, just because one must exist in order to fall short of a standard does not make existing (or denying a plea offer) the crime.

At most, you only have God's word that he's qualified. At least in most religious beliefs of history, when the head deity says "You can't understand" or "I do this for the greater good" it means that the head deity is doing it for said head deity's own good.

There's no righteousness like self righteousness, especially when it comes from a deity.

And the point about existing is that simply existing is in and of itself the crime.

If someone pushed a bunch of people off a cliff, would lowering a rope to some of them absolve them of the original crime?

Too powerful to be brought to justice does not make it right.
He defines justice. Not us. He has nothing higher than Himself to even swear by. Agree or not, it does actually make Him right.

Ah, so when Pol Pot told all those people he was "right" when he slaughtered them that makes it OK.

When someone takes up the authority on their own, justifies any atrocity they care to commit (read your bible if you don't believe that God commits atrocities), demands people be thankful and kiss his feet because he happened to spare them from the latest atrocity, this time, that's not "Justice" whatever the someone too powerful to be taken to task may claim.

And you don't consider that God's perspective might not be just a tad, um biased?

Human: "Hey! That's not right"
God: "I say it is."
Human: "But...."
God: "Shut up or I'll smite you."
Human: "Oh, well, when you put it that way...."
Reminds me of Bruce Almighty.
Biased in what way? Our only significance to Him is that He chooses to care about us. He need not respect our opinions.

He choosed to "care" about us in the same way that small boys "care" about flies when they pull their wings off.

You're back to the "he's too powerful to be taken to task."

Sorry, but might does not make right no matter how much the "mighty," and those hoping to be on the mighty's good graces, might believe it.

You might also want to consider that the God in Bruce Almighty lied about giving Bruce all his power. He didn't give him omniscience. If he had then instead of trying to use "omnipotence" (which wasn't really since it was limited) to get the girl to "love him" he would have known exactly what to say, exactly what to do, exactly how to act and behave, to get her to fall in love with him of her own "free will." Likewise, he would have known the results of a blanket "yes" on all the prayers.

And why are the standards impossible to attain? Who set those standards?
We disobeyed and it got rough. His nature set them.

His nature as a spoiled brat insisting on adulation of inferiors?

If I set a gap for you to jump across, make it too wide for any human to pass, give everyone a "jump or be pushed" choice, and then choose to catch a few, does that absolve me of the others who couldn't make it over the gap I set? Of course not.

If he's supposed to be so much better than human then he should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

We're supposed to be the "children of God." Well, if I raised my children the way He raises the human race....
That metaphor, of course, cannot be absolute.

If by "children of god" you mean "toys of a child like the next-door neighbor in Toy Story" then the metaphor mostly works. Or if you mean "slaves of a capricious and cruel master" then it also works. If, however, you mean anything that involves loving parents who do actually care about their children than it completely and utterly fails.

No, good and evil isn't the standard. To be blunt, the standard is "who strokes God's ego" (I had a harsher phrase in mind, but I'm trying to keep it reasonably polite.)
Hmm... I always thought egocentric meant you considered yourself to be the center of all things. Not an admirable trait for a human but certainly befitting God. Stroking not required but acknowledging does seem to lead to worship.

And you know that God is the center of all things how exactly? Because he told somebody that?

And your logic is circular. How do you know that there is actual acknowledgment? Why because people "worship" which is ego stroking. And not required? The first five of the 10 Commandments are all on that theme.

If he's so great then why does he care if anyone worships him, or even acknowledges him? I don't care if that leaf cutter ant acknowledges my human greatness or not. So long as it doesn't do anything to harm me or mine I'm willing to let it go on its merry way without any interference from me. I certainly won't decide to punish leaf cutter ants for the "crime" of not acknowledging, let alone worshiping, me. Is not God at least as much greater than me than I am to a leaf cutter ant? Why should he care whether anyone worships him or not. And don't claim he doesn't. If he's going to punish people who don't then he cares enough to take specific actions based on whether they do or don't.

Which belief? My "belief" can be summed up in three words: "I don't know."
Just discussing from differing angles of "leaning" then.

Leave science to the science classes.
And leave room for any theories not disproven?

When they are actual theories as science defines the term.

First thing you have to ask is: "how would we know if this were wrong." Is there anything, anything at all, that could be observed that would lead to the conclusion "this theory is wrong."

Simply saying "this is what some folk writing thousands of years ago said happened" does not make it a scientific theory.

If your religion is actually correct, science will get there. Science contains self-correcting mechanisms (the first question one asks of a theory, indeed, the defining question that makes it a theory rather than a cute idea is "how would I know if it were wrong").
2000 years later, people still wish they could debunk this cruel hoax. The investigation continues against this cute idea.

Do you really want to argue from how old it is? Buddhism has been around about 400 years longer. Hinduism is even older than that. Nobody knows how old Shinto is (it's origins predate recorded history in that part of the world).

Age does not infer correctness, particularly when for a large part of that period merely raising the question would get you burned at the stake.

"Debunk"? How about evidence that it actually happened. Let's take the core point of Christianity: the Resurrection.

Is there a record of Roman Soldiers set to guard a tomb executed for abandoning their post? (They would have been, you know.)

Is there any actual evidence that it actually happened?

The written record? Earliest known copies of any books of the New Testament were some of Paul's epistles about 80 AD or so--50 years after the events supposedly transpired and Saul/Paul was not a participant in any of the events in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He didn't come on the scene until later. The earliest written records perporting to be actual "eyewitness" testimony were not written until late 1st Century early 2nd Century--when none of the folk who might have actually "witnessed" the angel at the tomb or the Resurrected Christ were alive (nor anyone who might have seen Jesus walking on water and Peter taking a couple of steps himself or any of the other "miracles" that were supposed to have happened).

Oh, and don't bother going to the Shroud of Turin. First written record of its existence comments on the "cunning method of its making" (without, unfortunately, describing that method), the proportions are all wrong for a real person but are quite valid for a bas relief. Blood doesn't flow over the surface of hair in rivulets but soaks into it causing it to make a nasty mat. Tests that confirmed that the red were blood (which, incidentally, turns black with age and does not remain red) were actually tests for albumin, which is a component of blood true, but is also a component of egg yolk which was the primary binder for paints in the 13th century (egg tempra). And on and on. One has to believe in dozens of different "miracles" to get the shroud to be authentic, each miracle going exactly the certain way to exactly replicate the effect of the single alternate explanation "a piece of artwork produced in the 13th century by pressing cloth to conform to a relief carving then 'dry brushing' pigment over it and adding details with red egg tempra paint".

Come up with some actual, real, evidence and we'll discuss that. Until then, all you've got is "some folk writing thousands of years ago made the claim and wrote it down."

 

[dburkhead]

No one animal has the brain power to accomplish what we have. A termite hill is more organized then New York City, well maybe if all you are is a termite. How organized does it have to be. The human brain and all it's capabilities is what makes us different. Seen a chimp with a power tool lately? I see what your getting at if you break it down to it's lowest denominater maybe but I still don't agree.

And I did stipulate that tool use and language are areas where we excel over all other animals. In any category something is going to be "first." We're discussing this because we happen to be the ones that are "first" in this category. Had it been Cheetahs that were "first" in "language and tool use" (rather than "running speed") then it would be Cheetahs holding this conversation.

Also the difference between us and some other animals is not so great as you may think. While the consequences are great, the difference underlying them not so much. Chimps and bonobos are generally considered to be about as "smart" as an 8-12 year old with limited language ability.* Ceteaceans such as dolphins about the same (open question about which is smarter). Jokes about teenagers aside, that's not so much of a difference. Wolves and dogs are often given credit for being about the equivalent of a five year old. Other animals are in the same ballpark.

That modest difference has snowballed into a lot of visible "things" but that there are a lot of visible results from that difference does not mean that the differences are larger than they are.

*Personally, I think the key difference in how humans went as opposed to other animal was in that language ability. Once Ug had the ability to tell Og things like "Hey! I just hit these rocks together and one of them broke, leaving an edge that can cut things." To which Og says "Maybe can cut deer and make it easier to eat." And way we went. We're #1 in language ability (somebody has to be #1, or at least tied for it) and the rest followed.

 

[mettle]

I do not begin to know the answers to all that. But I was under the general understanding that in the context of GOD's not bound by linear time, then Jesus was not just offering his salvation to the dead framed by linear time as well. So, in his perception of time, that event would stretch across all existence. I am SURE that the reality of it all is beyond my total grasp, and that is fine with me.

The end of the book of John talks about many saints rising from the dead at after Christ's crucifixion and going to show themselves to the people of Jerusalem. God is always willing to show grace where He can.