Jump to content


Photo

Abiogenesis.


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#21 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 08 February 2017 - 05:30 PM

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]What I'm saying is, God has declared His position, and you don't accept that position.

that's right.
please, i mean no offense with this post, ok?

let's see if i got this straight:
god creates a pair of imperfect beings.
we know they were imperfect because they both sinned.
god banishes them from eden because of his screw up. (remember, it was he that created them)
god finally has enough of his imperfect beings to the point he destroys them all except for a handful of humans and animals.
IOW, he essentially starts over. (doesn't say much for perfection does it?)

the above makes absolutely no sense in the face of a perfect god.

is there a god?
i've asked myself that question at least a billion times, and i STILL have no answer.
i am no atheist, i CANNOT get up there and categorically state "there is no god".
conversely, i am no theist, i CANNOT get up there and categorically state "there is a god".

evidence for a god:
1. the placebo effect.
2. prayer and meditation have positive effects on humanity.

i am not here to persuade anyone, i am here to lay out the facts as i know them to be.
too bad science isn't as forthcoming.

#22 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 08 February 2017 - 09:58 PM

Philosophical?   Maybe.   I prefer to call it a realistic recognition of the limitations of the physical and natural sciences.

 

Why do you think we call them "physical" and "natural" sciences anyway?  Science is the same whether you are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, or atheist.

 

If you, as a Christian, want to reject methodological naturalism in science then show just ONE non-natural methodology available to science.  A single supernatural test scientists can perform will do.  Just one.  The absence of supernatural methods is exactly why science is limited to naturalistic ones.  It is also why science is incompetent to comment on the supernatural.

 

Due to the absence of supernatural methodologies and the limitations of natural and physical processes, science is methodologically naturalistic and philosophically agnostic.  When science is unable to come up with a "naturalistic" answer, the correct scientific position is "We donno" not "Goddidit."

 

If you choose the "Goddidit" option, that is your right.  Just be aware it is a philosophical opinion, not a scientific determination.

 

 

Sorry, I scanned the 35+ pages of your links but have no intention of spending a couple hours reading and digesting them.  If you have something that specifically shows that science is not legitimately restricted to naturalistic methodologies, you are invited to point it out.

 

Why is it "simplistic" to recognize that science has limitations on its methodology and sphere of investigation?  Maybe you should read Gould's NOMA.  Here are a few excerpts:

...The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. ....

 

As Mike already pointed out I have no need for "supernatural test scientists can perform". Instead I would investigate the expected material consequences of the hypothesis. I would call this pragmatic naturalism rather than methodological naturalism, i.e. you first and foremost try to find naturalistic explanations of phenomena, but if you have good reasons (like in the abiogenesis case) you could put forth hypothesis that include your full knowledge on how the world works. One of the big advantages with this is to allow science to investigate if it's more plausible true that God created life rather than life arose from purely naturalistic processes. Which hypothesis seems more plausible, given the facts we know. And this is not new thoughts, this exactly the same line of reasoning Newton used to explain the n-body problem when it came to planetary motions. If something doesn't look to be plausible given only naturalistic processes, that could be due to the fact that they are not the result of natural processes in the first place. 
 
A few questions for you piasan:
 
If God created life, how would you be able to investigate that given your commitment to methodological naturalism?
How do you know if a sandcastle is created or not just the result of natural processes?
Can we use science to investigate hypothesis on how the pyramids in Egypt was built? 
Don't you just exclude possible explanations based on your naturalistic beliefs?
How do you know that methodological naturalism is needed in science?
 
I also do agree that science has limits. But as a theist I don't need to agree to the hijacking of science by naturalists, why would I?
 
And not to belittle Gould, but he obviously wasn't a philosopher. The statement that "the lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise", just is not true which real philosophers like Plantinga have pointed out. Both in the article I referred to earlier but also in books like "Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism". I would recommend that you actually read what the other side have said about the matter, it could be that you are buying into the wrong thing :-)


#23 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 08 February 2017 - 10:25 PM

According to christianity at least, God created us so that we could have a loving relationship with Him. But for some reason (that we don't know) he wants us to freely choose Him. And that's where your reasoning seems off what if. You write:
 

let's see if i got this straight:
god creates a pair of imperfect beings.
we know they were imperfect because they both sinned.
god banishes them from eden because of his screw up. (remember, it was he that created them)
god finally has enough of his imperfect beings to the point he destroys them all except for a handful of humans and animals.
IOW, he essentially starts over. (doesn't say much for perfection does it?)

...

evidence for a god:
1. the placebo effect.
2. prayer and meditation have positive effects on humanity.
 

 

Let's do this in question form:
 
If you are good and loving to your son and teach them right from wrong. Is it still your fault if they rob a bank as an adult? Despite that you said that it was wrong? Or do your son have free will, so that he might choose something that is wrong?
 
And why reason in any other way regarding God? If I have free will, is I responsible for my actions or is God responsible for my actions? So should it not say that God banished them from eden because they screw up. God (being who He is) of course knew they would, but it was still their free choice to go against God, right? And is this not a part of some greater plan God has for all humanity? So maybe knowing that they would err eventually would lead to a possibility for God to intervene? Perhaps God has a plan after all, and perhaps it's here that Jesus teaching might be helpful.
 
And there are other arguments for Gods existence. Like Kalams cosmological argument. If you'd like I could give you some good pointers on where to start searching for answers. But that's only if you are interested.

  • mike the wiz likes this

#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 February 2017 - 04:13 AM

 

 

What If: let's see if i got this straight:
god creates a pair of imperfect beings.
we know they were imperfect because they both sinned.
god banishes them from eden because of his screw up. (remember, it was he that created them)
god finally has enough of his imperfect beings to the point he destroys them all except for a handful of humans and animals.
IOW, he essentially starts over. (doesn't say much for perfection does it?)

the above makes absolutely no sense in the face of a perfect god.

 

And no offense but this is a very predictable response from someone who doesn't know God, because if you don't know God, all you can go with is human reason, which is why I call such reasonings, "finite".

 

Ever see the film, "The Karate Kid". Mr Miagi tells Daniel son to do a whole bunch of house work, wash cars, paint his house, paint his face. Daniel son flips his lid at the end of all this, thinking he has been conned, because all he is doing is exactly what I said to you in my previous post - he is going by the bare facts alone, he will only accepts what he sees with his eyes. In actual fact he was being taught karate moves without knowing it.

 

Do you think what I have just quoted is something I have never heard before, or do you think it is something I have heard in pretty much the same from, from hundreds of other people who don't go beyond human reason and what makes natural, "sense"?

 

Until you see more to God's word, or even allow the possibility of more, you will of course, see no more. It is God's duty to let those who are duped remain duped as long as they don't seek Him. For, "the whole world holds sway by the power of the evil one."

 

I can give answers to why God done some of those things, partial answers, but I have done that before, you will always go back to the default of, "nah, it makes no sense to me, I don't accept it."

 

Isn't that what I said, that you WILL not, accept it. 

 

(I am only saying these things because you asked why and we are told that we should give an answer to the best of our ability. I can only repeat what God has said. What matters most is He sent Christ and He suffered in our place. His plan isn't for perfection in a temporary system, as I told you.)

 

 

 

What If: is there a God?

 

You are clearly asking yourself, as it is a rhetorical question so that you can repeat those answers you give, ad nauseam about placebo and the generalisation of prayer of all types. 

 

But I don't think you are asking us this question, therefore all I can say is, cest la vie.

 

:P



#25 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 February 2017 - 04:26 AM

I also remember Tirian, what Joseph said, who was imprisoned for years as part of God's will, to his hateful brothers; "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good."

 

This kind of gospel is hard to accept from those who only want a sugar-coated gospel.

 

In my own life God has put me through something horrible, and painful to me personally, BECAUSE, He has revealed to me, it is His will to do so. The way in which He has made me know it is His will, is nothing short of miraculous, but the succession of corresponding miracles He has done.

 

It should be known in many ways I don't want to do what God wants me to do. It's very difficult, and it is a very bizarre thing, and in some way I live with it each day, but from a naturalistic perspective it can never make sense to the rational, limited mind which can't understand anything deep because all that comes from the flesh is shallow, and all the mind of the flesh understands is ease, comfort and pleasure, and that is all it seeks, the survival of the physical body and the things which pleases it's senses.

 

It's not about logic. It's about obedience to God. In a way that's a choice - we can choose logic, which is basic and elementary to God, and God can't be figured out by it, or we can choose the inventor of logic and rationality. 

 

As pastor Charles stanley says, "you can't lose obeying God."

 

But for those who can't accept anything but a sugar-coated gospel, well, there is always the cheap and meaningless religions I suppose, they can go and sacrifice chickens in order to do magic tricks, or go and worship a cow, or meditate,,"mmmmmmm...arrrrgghhhhhhh...mmmmmmm" so they can have a feeling of peace, or they can pretend butterflies come from phylogenetic pondscum, or whatever silly and vacuous answer they can invent. Or they can even amalgamate all beliefs as one big, meaningless pluralistic worthless false system of morality, where we all go to prison for insulting people, but get out of prison after two weeks if we murder someone, because of our, "rights".

 

LoL!


  • Tirian likes this

#26 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2017 - 09:11 AM

If you, as a Christian, want to reject methodological naturalism in science then show just ONE non-natural methodology available to science.  A single supernatural test scientists can perform will do.  Just one.  The absence of supernatural methods is exactly why science is limited to naturalistic ones.  It is also why science is incompetent to comment on the supernatural.

No, you're bringing in a red-herring here. It is not the object in question Tirian was claiming but rather the present, naturalistic facts.

Here's Tirian's exact statement:

....This is just about trying to make theists accept methodological naturalism, which is not needed to do science, at least not if you don't believe in naturalism.

In what way is it a red herring to directly address Tirian's claims that this is "just about trying to make theists accept methodological naturalism" and methodological naturalism "is not needed to do science... if you don't believe in naturalsim."  I have explained exactly why SCIENTISTS must use "methodological naturalism" in their scientific work.  Specifically, there are no non-natural methods available to science.

 

So then there isn't any need to test the supernatural, we are merely allowing a possibility in the form of an assumption, that God did create the universe. 

You offer no way to test the assumption using methods available to science.  (I hope you're not going to propose a "God of the Gaps" test.)

 

"Science" effectively disallows this assumption meaning that secular, evolutionary science implicitly denies that God can be part of the creation, or that anyone can proceed from that assumption.

For such a self-professed logician, your really good at jumping to conclusions.  There's a vast gap between denying God can be part of creation and the explicit statement that we cannot (scientifically) test the assumption.

 

Keep in mind, by the standard I use, it is just as explicitly wrong for Dawkins to try using science to disprove God as it is for Dembski to attempt proving God exists with science.

 

The physical and natural sciences are still the wrong tool for the job.  Why won't either you or Tirian answer this one simple question:

"Why do we call them PHYSICAL and NATURAL sciences?"

 

 

Secondly, while "if it is science" it may follow that, "therefore it is methodologically natural" the reverse isn't true. If it is methodologically natural doesn't mean it is science.

Now that's a red herring.  No one has said or implied any such thing.

 

 

I agree that science has limits, and it has went beyond them by employing the philosophy that intelligent design can happen by natural processes.

ID is a good philosophical argument.  It is not yet developed to the point that it is ready for the physical and natural sciences.



#27 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 09 February 2017 - 10:50 AM

that's right.please, i mean no offense with this post, ok?let's see if i got this straight:god creates a pair of imperfect beings.we know they were imperfect because they both sinned.god banishes them from eden because of his screw up. (remember, it was he that created them)god finally has enough of his imperfect beings to the point he destroys them all except for a handful of humans and animals.IOW, he essentially starts over. (doesn't say much for perfection does it?)the above makes absolutely no sense in the face of a perfect god.is there a god?i've asked myself that question at least a billion times, and i STILL have no answer.i am no atheist, i CANNOT get up there and categorically state "there is no god".conversely, i am no theist, i CANNOT get up there and categorically state "there is a god".evidence for a god:1. the placebo effect.2. prayer and meditation have positive effects on humanity.i am not here to persuade anyone, i am here to lay out the facts as i know them to be.too bad science isn't as forthcoming.

"let's see if i got this straight:
god creates a pair of imperfect beings."

100% Correct.. God said that he decided to created Man in his own image with a FREE WILL to Love him or reject him.. Along with that Free Will comes CHOICE, Along with that Choice comes the ability to make BAD CHOICES therefore IMPERFECTION is a requirement.. God says he lives outside of time, therfore, all of the sick, evil, and vile humans that died in the flood were ALREADY DEAD to him (Except for Noahs family) God merely shortened their lives as is his right as their creator..

In the same way

I am guessing that God did not desire to create perfection in humans as he had no interest in Robotic Beings Who Would Be Coerced To Give Him MEANINGLESS Love and Attention.. I am guessing that he preferred the threat of Hell as a Motivation and not a Requirement to seek him..

#28 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 February 2017 - 11:04 AM

 

Piasan: For such a self-professed logician, your really good at jumping to conclusions.  There's a vast gap between denying God can be part of creation and the explicit statement that we cannot (scientifically) test the assumption.

 

Keep in mind, by the standard I use, it is just as explicitly wrong for Dawkins to try using science to disprove God as it is for Dembski to attempt proving God exists with science.

 

Red; a personal attack you seem to need to repeat in every conversation we have, can you provide the link showing where I claimed to be a logician?

 

As for jumping to conclusions, if you are saying that abiogenesis and evolution is how life came to be, then you are stating that this is what caused life to be, which means you ipso facto ARE stating that God did not cause life to be, because you are saying these natural processes are what caused it to be.

 

Implicitly, all evolutionary theories are saying there was a scientific, materialistic cause of these things, without any further elements involved, otherwise it wouldn't be scientific to include the extra unparsimonious assumptions.

 

Therefore to say, "it happened by itself" IS TO SAY that God didn't do it.

 

That is what I mean.

 

EXAMPLE;

 

"This hill says Bob on it. We call it Bob hill by tradition, it's a small hill, we believe Bob built it, only a scientist has just gave a natural explanation for why the hill is there. But we accept that explanation and we accept Bob built it."

 

Erm, contradictory bosh! For if it built itself how can Bob have built it?

 

Piasan, did God create His creation, or did it create itself? You can't have both. If science says it created itself then you are saying it created itself without the need for God, since that is what science says - that the universe created itself.

 

It's either or, because the universe can't both create itself and be created by God, it is a contradiction.

 

If God created evolution of the universe, you must explain how He is needed scientifically. Do you? Erm, no you don't - all you do is give us the same atheist version of evolution that states God is not required and is like a third wheel on a bicycle.



#29 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2017 - 11:07 AM

 

Philosophical?   Maybe.   I prefer to call it a realistic recognition of the limitations of the physical and natural sciences.

 

Why do you think we call them "physical" and "natural" sciences anyway?  Science is the same whether you are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, or atheist.

 

If you, as a Christian, want to reject methodological naturalism in science then show just ONE non-natural methodology available to science.  A single supernatural test scientists can perform will do.  Just one.  The absence of supernatural methods is exactly why science is limited to naturalistic ones.  It is also why science is incompetent to comment on the supernatural.

 

Due to the absence of supernatural methodologies and the limitations of natural and physical processes, science is methodologically naturalistic and philosophically agnostic.  When science is unable to come up with a "naturalistic" answer, the correct scientific position is "We donno" not "Goddidit."

 

If you choose the "Goddidit" option, that is your right.  Just be aware it is a philosophical opinion, not a scientific determination.

 

 

Sorry, I scanned the 35+ pages of your links but have no intention of spending a couple hours reading and digesting them.  If you have something that specifically shows that science is not legitimately restricted to naturalistic methodologies, you are invited to point it out.

As Mike already pointed out I have no need for "supernatural test scientists can perform". 

You do if you want to call the inclusion of supernatural causes into the physical and natural sciences.

 

Of course, if you merely propose the supernatural as a philosophical avenue of investigation, that's totally different.

 

Instead I would investigate the expected material consequences of the hypothesis. I would call this pragmatic naturalism rather than methodological naturalism, ....

"Expected material consequences" implies materialism.  Materialism is another favorite creationist complaint right along with the naturalistic methodology of science.

 

My comment that "naturalistic methodology" is a "realistic recognition of the limitations of the physical and natural sciences" seems to right along the lines of your statement about "pragmatic naturalism."   We may not be all that far apart.

 

..., i.e. you first and foremost try to find naturalistic explanations of phenomena, but if you have good reasons (like in the abiogenesis case) you could put forth hypothesis that include your full knowledge on how the world works.  Which hypothesis seems more plausible, given the facts we know. 

That's fine, but you can't simply suspend the natural and physical laws and claim you're still doing natural or physical science science.  You also need to propose a way to test your hypothesis.

 

Which hypothesis seems more plausible, given the facts we know. And this is not new thoughts, this exactly the same line of reasoning Newton used to explain the n-body problem when it came to planetary motions. If something doesn't look to be plausible given only naturalistic processes, that could be due to the fact that they are not the result of natural processes in the first place. 

Of course, planetary motions have been fully explained by purely "naturalistic processes.  It is interesting that you would cite Newton because of the Newtonian synthesis.....  that the natural laws apply at all times and in all places.

 

While it could be that something doesn't look plausible under "only naturalistic processes" could mean it is not the result of natural processes, it is also possible that it is the result of natural processes we don't fully understand.  The planetary motions example is a good one.  Newton was not able to explain the orbit of Mercury by his laws.  It was not until Einstein developed the theories of relativity that Mercury's orbit was fully explained ..... by purely natural processes.

 

I find it amusing you would invoke Newton to support introduction of non-natural processes for two reasons:

1)  Newton's scientific explanations proposed only natural processes and solutions.

2)  The Newtonian Synthesis which basically says the natural laws apply at all times and in all places.

 

A few questions for you piasan:

 
If God created life, how would you be able to investigate that given your commitment to methodological naturalism?
How do you know if a sandcastle is created or not just the result of natural processes?
Can we use science to investigate hypothesis on how the pyramids in Egypt was built? 
Don't you just exclude possible explanations based on your naturalistic beliefs?
How do you know that methodological naturalism is needed in science?
 
I also do agree that science has limits. But as a theist I don't need to agree to the hijacking of science by naturalists, why would I?

Before I answer your questions, I ask you to reply to one that I previously presented.....

Why do we call them NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences?

 

I suspect your answer will show we may not be that far apart here either.  Instead of a "hijacking of science by naturalists," the limitations of "naturalistic methodologies" are a pragmatic recognition of the necessary limitations of natural and physical science.

 

And not to belittle Gould, but he obviously wasn't a philosopher. The statement that "the lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise", just is not true which real philosophers like Plantinga have pointed out. Both in the article I referred to earlier but also in books like "Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism". I would recommend that you actually read what the other side have said about the matter, it could be that you are buying into the wrong thing :-)

Gould also recognized that along the margins, the magistra of science and religion do bump into each other.

 

I agree Gould wasn't a philosopher.  It is equally true that such "real philosophers" as Plantinga are not paleontologists or molecular biologists either.

 

What on Earth makes you think I haven't actually studied the philosophical arguments of the other side?  You need to understand, it was the philosophical arguments (and direct observational evidence) that led to my rejection of YEC and acceptance of evolution as a process of creation used by God.



#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2017 - 11:12 AM

let's see if i got this straight:
god creates a pair of imperfect beings.

100% Correct.. God said that he decided to created Man in his own image with a FREE WILL to Love him or reject him.. Along with that Free Will comes CHOICE, Along with that Choice comes the ability to make BAD CHOICES therefore IMPERFECTION is a requirement.. ....

With that comment, we can lay to rest the claim that God's creation was "perfect."  If man was imperfect, the creation can not be perfect because it had a flaw (in man).

 

Even the Bible says creation was only "very good."



#31 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 09 February 2017 - 11:31 AM

According to christianity at least, God created us so that we could have a loving relationship with Him. But for some reason (that we don't know) he wants us to freely choose Him. And that's where your reasoning seems off what if. You write:

 

 
Let's do this in question form:
 
If you are good and loving to your son and teach them right from wrong. Is it still your fault if they rob a bank as an adult? Despite that you said that it was wrong? Or do your son have free will, so that he might choose something that is wrong?

this makes no sense in the face of a "all knowing, all seeing" god.
god would already know the outcome of this.

And there are other arguments for Gods existence. Like Kalams cosmological argument. If you'd like I could give you some good pointers on where to start searching for answers. But that's only if you are interested.

by all means, please do, but i have my own little scenario for god, and it goes something like this:
think about what it would be like to be the only immortal being in existence.
the devil doesn't actually exist, it's a construction by god for his plan.
god soon becomes "bored" with his place in the universe simply because of the vast length of time he has existed.
what does god do?
he sacrifices his immortality to become human and instills in them the "tools" needed to attain godlike perfection.
what are these tools?
the placebo effect and the bible which contains the simple phrase "to come as children".

the above is a very reasonable accounting and it seems to solve a lot of questions.

#32 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 February 2017 - 11:48 AM

 

Piasan: With that comment, we can lay to rest the claim that God's creation was "perfect."  If man was imperfect, the creation can not be perfect because it had a flaw (in man).

 

Even the Bible says creation was only "very good."

 

Yes but it is a stretch too far to assume that part of God's plan was cancer and disease and suffering, before Eden. That is not, "very good" Piasan, it is a very bad mixing of oil and water. (Darwinism and Christianity) :P

 

Mankind wasn't created imperfect in the sense that something was wrong. For example, we can see a Ferrari car which is brand new, is not perfect because it may not be as efficient on the brakes as another model, but really you place the cart before the horse.

 

The decision by man to sin, was one of freewill, and a choice someone makes and then enacts, is their responsibility. Therefore the "imperfection" was not found in God.

 

So then the only question remains is; "why didn't God create a perfect world." I would say He created something perfect in the sense that had it carried on in it's created state, there wouldn't have been any meaningful "imperfection" apart from the pedantic type. 

 

But we can't know for sure how "good" it was in the beginning.

 

Technically you could say, "it is not perfect BECAUSE it has the capacity to go wrong." But really God's plan was that this creation would be temporary because He foresaw the fall of man.

 

In that sense, if you ask God to create a race car but only He knows this race car will be used for commuting and not racing, you might end up getting a fast, sporty commuter, and you may say, "but it's not a race car, it has headlights, and a radio, etc..it is not a perfect race car...I wonder why...I thought we were going racing."

 

AHHH! But remember - only God knows that you will actually end up using it for commuting.

 

In the same way, God created a type of universe which was, "set up" to be temporary. Even though it was perfect for perhaps a few weeks at the beginning, God knew it would only have to be perfect at the very start.

 

So the issue of perfection is a complicated one. God can create perfectly but it depends on what the designer wants. It always depends on the designer's desire. (what He wants to accomplish).



#33 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2017 - 12:08 PM

For such a self-professed logician, your really good at jumping to conclusions.  There's a vast gap between denying God can be part of creation and the explicit statement that we cannot (scientifically) test the assumption.

Red; a personal attack you seem to need to repeat in every conversation we have, can you provide the link showing where I claimed to be a logician?

Do you deny you have frequently claimed substantial superiority over others here in your logic abilities?
 
Do you deny you claimed my direct response to issues raised by Tirian was a "red herring?"  Do you deny you then went on to introduce a red herring of your own when you said:

Secondly, while "if it is science" it may follow that, "therefore it is methodologically natural" the reverse isn't true. If it is methodologically natural doesn't mean it is science.

Do you expect your own (obvious) errors will not be pointed out when you claim such superiority?

 

As for jumping to conclusions, if you are saying that abiogenesis and evolution is how life came to be, then you are stating that this is what caused life to be, which means you ipso facto ARE stating that God did not cause life to be, because you are saying these natural processes are what caused it to be.

I'm on record many times in this form that, from a scientific perspective ALL proposals of abiogenesis are speculative.  It is also my position that God, Who is omnipotent, is fully capable of using natural processes to achieve His ends.

 

If you need me to be more clear.... God caused all things to be.  Without Him, there is nothing.

 

Implicitly, all evolutionary theories are saying there was a scientific, materialistic cause of these things, without any further elements involved, otherwise it wouldn't be scientific to include the extra unparsimonious assumptions.

All scientific theories say there is a scientific, materialistic cause.  Science can make no claims that include violations or suspension of the natural laws.  Do "the extra unparsimonious assumptions" include suspension of natural laws when God performs a miracle?  Except for a "God of the gaps" argument, how can science test such a situation?

 

You see, the real problem for creationism isn't evolution or Darwin.  It's Newton and his synthesis. 

 

Therefore to say, "it happened by itself" IS TO SAY that God didn't do it.

Maybe you don't understand the position of theistic evolution..... which (according to multiple Gallup polls over about 35 years or so) is about 80% of those who accept evolution.

 

Piasan, did God create His creation, or did it create itself? You can't have both. If science says it created itself then you are saying it created itself without the need for God, since that is what science says - that the universe created itself.

 

It's either or, because the universe can't both create itself and be created by God, it is a contradiction.

Once again..... God created the universe and everything in it.  We disagree about how and when, not Who.

 

Let me ask you.... is an omnipotent God capable of using natural processes to achieve His goals?

 

If God created evolution of the universe, you must explain how He is needed scientifically. Do you? Erm, no you don't - all you do is give us the same atheist version of evolution that states God is not required and is like a third wheel on a bicycle.

I just don't know how to communicate this to you any more clearly.

 

God is a necessity.  He is fully capable of using natural processes to achieve His ends.  It is not atheistic to point out that the natural and physical sciences are incapable of dealing with supernatural acts by God.

 

Again, why won't you answer this simple question?  Why do we call them NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences?



#34 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2017 - 02:57 PM

...God said that he decided to created Man in his own image with a FREE WILL to Love him or reject him.. Along with that Free Will comes CHOICE, Along with that Choice comes the ability to make BAD CHOICES therefore IMPERFECTION is a requirement.. ....

With that comment, we can lay to rest the claim that God's creation was "perfect."  If man was imperfect, the creation can not be perfect because it had a flaw (in man).

 

Even the Bible says creation was only "very good."

Yes but it is a stretch too far to assume that part of God's plan was cancer and disease and suffering, before Eden. That is not, "very good" Piasan, it is a very bad mixing of oil and water. (Darwinism and Christianity) :P

Even disease and death have a purpose.   Ever see the movie "Death Takes a Holiday?"

 

In the creation account, God repeatedly commands: "Be fruitful and multiply."  Without death, the Earth would quickly be over run with all kinds of nasty things.  For example, e-coli reproduces about every 20 minutes.  In an hour, two e-coli would produce 8 offspring.  In a day, there would be 4.72 x 1021.  In a week, there would be more e-coli bacteria on Earth than there are atoms in the universe.

 

Mankind wasn't created imperfect in the sense that something was wrong. For example, we can see a Ferrari car which is brand new, is not perfect because it may not be as efficient on the brakes as another model, but really you place the cart before the horse.

Your analogy is flawed.... no one claims a Ferrari (which certainly is "very good") is perfect.

 

The decision by man to sin, was one of freewill, and a choice someone makes and then enacts, is their responsibility. Therefore the "imperfection" was not found in God.

No one is claiming the imperfection was found in God.  (Which fallacy is that?)

 

If I had a dollar for every time a creationist has commented on man's "flawed" and "sinful" nature, I'd be retired today.  It's a real simple concept.... if man was flawed, creation was not perfect.  

 

So then the only question remains is; "why didn't God create a perfect world." I would say He created something perfect in the sense that had it carried on in it's created state, there wouldn't have been any meaningful "imperfection" apart from the pedantic type. 

In terms of perfection, being a little bit imperfect is like being a little bit pregnant.

 

But we can't know for sure how "good" it was in the beginning.

 

Technically you could say, "it is not perfect BECAUSE it has the capacity to go wrong." But really God's plan was that this creation would be temporary because He foresaw the fall of man.

You are right there is no way to know how "good" creation was in the beginning.  The question isn't how good it was.  The issue is whether or not it was perfect.

 

In that sense, if you ask God to create a race car but only He knows this race car will be used for commuting and not racing, you might end up getting a fast, sporty commuter, and you may say, "but it's not a race car, it has headlights, and a radio, etc..it is not a perfect race car...I wonder why...I thought we were going racing."

 

AHHH! But remember - only God knows that you will actually end up using it for commuting.

OK... God would have known what you'd really need is a commuting car, not a race car.   We can certainly agree the car God created is not a perfect race car but it is a perfect car for commuting.   I'm sure there's a logical fallacy here too, but I don't recall which one.

 

Let's put it this way in terms of literalism.   God didn't necessarily want a perfect creation.  It may well have suited His purposes better to have a flaw or two His creation.  But the Bible clearly does NOT say creation was perfect and those who demand a literal reading need to keep that in mind when they claim a perfect creation.

 

In the same way, God created a type of universe which was, "set up" to be temporary. Even though it was perfect for perhaps a few weeks at the beginning, God knew it would only have to be perfect at the very start.

As I recall, the comment about creation being "very good" was made on Day 6 of creation week... not a few weeks later.

 

Creation may have appeared to be perfect, but the hidden flaw in man was still an imperfection that was merely waiting to be exposed.

 

So the issue of perfection is a complicated one. God can create perfectly but it depends on what the designer wants. It always depends on the designer's desire. (what He wants to accomplish).

No, perfection is really quite simple.  Any flaw, no matter how small and insignificant voids a claim of perfection.  As I pointed out, maybe God wanted man to be flawed.  Perhaps He simply felt creation was "good enough."

 

BTW, I'd be real careful about going to far into free will and the fall.  There are a lot of logical problems with free will in the presence of perfect omniscience.  There is also the issue that the sin was eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Until Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they didn't know the difference between good and evil.  Without that knowledge, they couldn't have known it was sinful to disobey God.   But I suggest that's a whole topic of its own that has probably been hammered out here a half dozen or more times.



#35 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 10 February 2017 - 03:05 AM

this makes no sense in the face of a "all knowing, all seeing" god.
god would already know the outcome of this.

by all means, please do, but i have my own little scenario for god, and it goes something like this:
think about what it would be like to be the only immortal being in existence.
the devil doesn't actually exist, it's a construction by god for his plan.
god soon becomes "bored" with his place in the universe simply because of the vast length of time he has existed.
what does god do?
he sacrifices his immortality to become human and instills in them the "tools" needed to attain godlike perfection.
what are these tools?
the placebo effect and the bible which contains the simple phrase "to come as children".

the above is a very reasonable accounting and it seems to solve a lot of questions.

 

I truly don't understand your objection. Let's make an example:
 
We have two agents (in the philosophical meaning of the word) A and B which both have free will.
A has two choices 1 and 2, and can freely chose either one of these. 
B knows (how he knows that is irrelevant for the discussion) what A will chose.
How will B's foreknowledge of A's choice affect A's free will? 
And how will the foreknowledge make B responsible for what A chose?
 
Either I'm missing something or your not making logical or philosophical sense. I would say that if you have free will you are responsible for your actions, regardless if someone else knows what actions you will take or not.
 
I wonder where you have searched and learned about God, because your own solution seems very strange. But first and foremost I would suggest that you go for example an alpha course (http://alpha.org/) where they teach the basics of Christianity. The best with this approach is that it's both structured and personal.
 
But there are also sites like this one (http://www.reasonabl...rs-1-podcast/s2) that could be interesting. Hope you find some of this interesting.

  • mike the wiz likes this

#36 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 February 2017 - 04:10 AM

It's that classic argument of atheism, "What If" may be unaware he is arguing, that "God is responsible for all sin because of predestination because of foresight".

 

The argument is flawed as Tirian pointed out, because if God was "absent" in a room where someone could choose an apple or orange, and present later on in the same room when the same person made the same choice, logically it can be shown that this would not alter the person's choice. Furthermore the fact people will argue God is not there is because they feel no influence on their choices.

 

Therefore it's a vacuous argument. It's also for me, one of the stupidest atheist arguments that can be put into this form to show how stupid it is; "God made us all, therefore Ted Bundy isn't responsible for his murders but God is."

 

This is the height of stupidity, especially if when we observe God's clear command to us to, "do not murder." God would not issue such a command if it was God causing murder, He would simply have issued a dictum stating this; "I will stop everyone from murdering because I am God and have the power to."

 

The fact God commands not to murder, means it is impossible for Him to issue such a command unless we do have freewill. (Reductio Ad Absurdum) It also shows that if it was His choice He would choose for there to be no murder, so He is commanding us not to. That He still foresees we murder and doesn't stop it doesn't mean He won't issue justice for it, it means God knew that making freewill agents would mean they would be able to sin.

 

This is why this system is temporary, because God doesn't want us to go on murdering for all eternity, but His purposes on earth are so important that He allows the system to continue so He can work out His purposes. That is why Jesus says that He can't separate the wheat from the chaff while they are growing together. Effectively He is saying that to judge mankind NOW and end all evil, would mean the good things that have started the wheels of motion to turn, would also have to cease, and all of the good people, and all of the good plans He had, won't then come to pass.

 

Think of it this way, if we were all-knowing and all-seeing and we, "put to rights" all of the things that seemed wrong, very shortly there would be eternal consequences we had destroyed BUT, if you were suddenly omniscient, the things that don't make sense, would now make sense, so perhaps all those things you thought you would do if you had all power and all knowledge, you would no longer do, "What If", because now you wouldn't be limited, and all things would make sense. Proving my point that our finite minds can't make sense of omniscient actions BECAUSE they are finite, not because there is a flaw with omniscient actions.

 

I have proven that deductively, if you pit omniscience/omnipotence against any, "thing", the thing will always be flawed or limited, which may APPEAR to make it look like omniscient ability is flawed or limited.

 

It is an ILLUSION. I wrote about it in this blog entry, a long time ago;

 

http://creationworld...mnipotence.html


  • Tirian likes this

#37 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 February 2017 - 04:28 AM

Piasan I will just address the point of debate for now then. You think the issue of perfection is simple. It isn't though, because a lot of the time what we think is perfect may not be.

 

God didn't create the creation, "perfect" from our perspective BUT, this only presents a new question; "what then would be perfect?" From a limited, human perspective, this may mean such things as this;

 

1. No possibility of injury.

2. No disease.

3. No possibility of sin entering in.

 

But now let's imagine that when the universe is all wrapped up, and God's kingdom has come, and we all know what Christ went through, and we all have learnt lessons we could never have learnt in a, "perfect" world, then would it be, "perfect" if we end up as empty shells, spoilt robots that can't even appreciate a sinless system, because we don't even know what one is. 

 

From a human perspective, this may be, "perfect", but from God's perspective, creating a system He knew would make it possible to introduce sin, and He knew would lead to the cross, is His perfect will.

 

So it's not simple because from God's perspective, it is perfect if everything happens OVERALL, as He intended, and all of the good purposes He purposed and wanted more than a world of robots, will now come to pass.

 

In other words, God can make a new heavens and earth which will be perfect, but from His perspective, He has been creating perfect worlds in the trillions for eternity. For Him to create our version of a perfect world, is something He has done one billion trillion times before. 

 

So the issue of perfection is not a simple matter. We also have to consider that perfection is a relative term. Some people will say, "this woman is perfect" whereas others may say, "no, greed isn't perfect", but from that person's view, because of their personality, they may think greed is part of perfection.

 

There are also pedantic imperfections. Example; "a ferrari can't fly, so it's not perfect design". Or my favourite; "the vertebrate eye is wired backwards so isn't perfect design". (my favourite because that's the silliest old canard argument that plays right into my hands, because I have a full answer as to why in fact it is correctly designed.) :)

 

Another one is "my eyes can't do three somersaults while I stand on one toe." That's when atheists become really dumb - when they tell you to look at a black dot on a page, whistle three times, close your eyes then open them and try and see the dot.

 

Believe it or not they do ask you to do things like that, just so they can "prove" the eye isn't designed right.

 

In other words, they try to get you to do something with your eyes, you would never do with your eyes in a lifetime, but that they have invented so they can say the eye is imperfect.

 

Question; where does the silliness end?



#38 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:39 AM

Piasan I will just address the point of debate for now then. You think the issue of perfection is simple. It isn't though, because a lot of the time what we think is perfect may not be.

 

God didn't create the creation, "perfect" from our perspective BUT, this only presents a new question; "what then would be perfect?" From a limited, human perspective, this may mean such things as this;

1. No possibility of injury.

2. No disease.

3. No possibility of sin entering in.

It's always amusing when a Genesis literalist runs from the literal words of Genesis.  

 

I'm not arguing "from our perspective" but from the perspective of a literal Genesis.  Genesis says creation was "very good" not perfect.  The claim that creation was "perfect" before the Fall does not come from the text.

 

 

....  From a human perspective, this may be, "perfect", but from God's perspective, creating a system He knew would make it possible to introduce sin, and He knew would lead to the cross, is His perfect will.

 

So it's not simple because from God's perspective, it is perfect if everything happens OVERALL, as He intended, and all of the good purposes He purposed and wanted more than a world of robots, will now come to pass.

If events unfolded perfectly as God intended, then the sin of Adam and Eve was not due to the sinful nature of man, but part of His perfect plan.  That would also mean that the claims of creationists that (paraphrasing) "the world was cursed as a result of man's sinful nature" is also part of God's plan and reflects His perfection.  IOW, God intended it that way.

 

 

In other words, God can make a new heavens and earth which will be perfect, but from His perspective, He has been creating perfect worlds in the trillions for eternity. For Him to create our version of a perfect world, is something He has done one billion trillion times before. 

Red herring anyone?

 

This has nothing at all to do with the Biblical statement that creation was "very good" versus the literalist claim that it was "perfect."

 

 

So the issue of perfection is not a simple matter. We also have to consider that perfection is a relative term. Some people will say, "this woman is perfect" whereas others may say, "no, greed isn't perfect", but from that person's view, because of their personality, they may think greed is part of perfection.

I'm not the one who claims creation was "perfect" before the Fall.  That conflict with the clear words of Genesis belongs to the creationists.

 

There are also pedantic imperfections. Example; "a ferrari can't fly, so it's not perfect design". Or my favourite; "the vertebrate eye is wired backwards so isn't perfect design". (my favourite because that's the silliest old canard argument that plays right into my hands, because I have a full answer as to why in fact it is correctly designed.) :)

 

Another one is "my eyes can't do three somersaults while I stand on one toe." That's when atheists become really dumb - when they tell you to look at a black dot on a page, whistle three times, close your eyes then open them and try and see the dot.

 

Believe it or not they do ask you to do things like that, just so they can "prove" the eye isn't designed right.

 

In other words, they try to get you to do something with your eyes, you would never do with your eyes in a lifetime, but that they have invented so they can say the eye is imperfect.

 

Aside from the fact that Ferrari's aren't designed to fly.... detached retinas and blindness are so perfect.....

 

 

Question; where does the silliness end?

We've taken this far enough off topic....  How about now?



#39 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:51 AM

I truly don't understand your objection.

honestly?
i find the god concept irrational.
OTOH, i cannot neglect the fact that close to 80% of the people consider themselves more than what physical laws can explain.

Let's make an example:
 
We have two agents (in the philosophical meaning of the word) A and B which both have free will.
A has two choices 1 and 2, and can freely chose either one of these. 
B knows (how he knows that is irrelevant for the discussion) what A will chose.
How will B's foreknowledge of A's choice affect A's free will? 
And how will the foreknowledge make B responsible for what A chose?
 
Either I'm missing something or your not making logical or philosophical sense. I would say that if you have free will you are responsible for your actions, regardless if someone else knows what actions you will take or not.

okay, so why does god do this?
it seems to me as if he is running some type of test of "let's see what happens"
how does it feel to be a lab rat?
 

I wonder where you have searched and learned about God, . . .

up until i was about 12 or so, we went to church every sunday, without exception.
it didn't matter what the conditions were outside.
i tried reading the bible, but it didn't interest me that much.
i read maybe the first few pages, and some of revelations, but that's about it.
when i was about 30 or so i ran across the "new international version" and i found it little easier to digest and i read a fair amount of it, maybe half.
i was baptized when i was 10.

. . . because your own solution seems very strange.

it's the closest i can come to resolving the conundrums associated with all of this.

But first and foremost I would suggest that you go for example an alpha course (http://alpha.org/) where they teach the basics of Christianity. The best with this approach is that it's both structured and personal.
 
But there are also sites like this one (http://www.reasonabl...rs-1-podcast/s2) that could be interesting. Hope you find some of this interesting.

actually, the request wasn't for me, but for others.
here is another site:
www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm

as a side note:
i created this thread so we could gather the scientific problems associated with abiogenesis.

#40 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:29 AM

 

Piasan: It's always amusing when a Genesis literalist runs from the literal words of Genesis.  

 

I'm not arguing "from our perspective" but from the perspective of a literal Genesis.  Genesis says creation was "very good" not perfect.  The claim that creation was "perfect" before the Fall does not come from the text.

 

The Genesis text also doesn't mention palm trees or a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

 

1. I am not a Genesis literalist, not in the sense that I am a crucifixion literalist, meaning I believe that Joseph's flight to Egypt in Genesis, really happens, just as I believe Christ died on the cross and was resurrected, literally. There is no special treatment for Genesis like you want to make out. You are the one who is inconsistent by treating Genesis fast and loose.

 

If something is very good, this does not mean it is not perfect, nevertheless MY CLAIM is not necessarily a perfect creation, for I am not dogmatic about that complicated subject. Just as it could have been perfect from one perspective, it may not be from another, and I am in no position to say that one view is less valid than the other.

 

 

 

Piasan: If events unfolded perfectly as God intended, then the sin of Adam and Eve was not due to the sinful nature of man, but part of His perfect plan.  That would also mean that the claims of creationists that (paraphrasing) "the world was cursed as a result of man's sinful nature" is also part of God's plan and reflects His perfection.  IOW, God intended it that way.

 

This does not follow. What follows is that God foreseen bad things but He wanted human beings to exist so He could have the most meaningful fellowship and relate to us, and love us and us Him, in a unique way. I would not say it, "unfolded perfectly as God intended" as that is a particular way of putting spin on it. But rather I would say that while it did not unfold as He would have had it unfold, that His perfect plan in Christ, and eternal life, ultimately was His perfect plan for that situation. We know the tree of life was in the garden, as it will be in the new Jerusalem.

 

So I think to say, "God intended it that way" isn't quite correct. I would say He intended and foreseen Christ, that is to say, God foresaw His own perfect actions for situation X, meaning there could be no other situation, because to circumvent any stage, would mean God is not immutable.

 

 

 

Piasan: I'm not the one who claims creation was "perfect" before the Fall.  That conflict with the clear words of Genesis belongs to the creationists.

 

It doesn't really "conflict", it is simply an omitted term, meaning it could or could not have been, "perfect". If it is a question of superlatives, it might simply be that the term, "very good" is more of an emotional response, in that the relevant term was that God was pleased, and therefore the term, "perfect", might simply have not occurred in that particular instance. I myself am not for or against the term, "perfect", I am just playing baba's advocate. ;)

 

 

 

Piasan: Aside from the fact that Ferrari's aren't designed to fly.... detached retinas and blindness are so perfect...

 

Those aren't design-faults any more than puncturing your Ferrari's tyre is a design fault. This is the problem with the term, "perfection", IMHO. It's why I can't commit either way. 

 

One thing is for sure, blindness is not, "very good" which is why Christ healed blind people, and if we are to take Genesis NOT as literal history, then didn't Christ contradict His "very good" creation by healing blindness? For blindness has been happening for hundreds of millions of years according to evo.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users