Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No Subj. -- 2 Pet. Ref.)

 

2 Peter 3:6 -- NT Reference Supplemental --  See :: Image




F i n


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
But if the salt have lost his savor wherewith shall it be salted

re  :: But if the salt have lost its' savor, wherewith shall it be salted?

  If you want data that could be used as a tentative support of the actual pin-pointing, to line-up with  that  of a far more ancient date (for such an event on any scale)? I guess you would. One would consider significantly less concentration of dissolved salts (mainly NaCl) in the water, huh ? A spike in desalination through the process of introduction of indescribable vast amounts of H2O, according to the story,.

See :: Image


 



 



 



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

According to the best calculations I was able to see and make, which in turn could begin to help you to look into obtaining data, about you guessed it,  it's the water and a-lot more . . ?  (The bold assertion(s) are often made,  matter-a-factly,  there would be no desalination of world oceans. But, The numbers aren't cited to back up the claim however).

. . .

_______

Prov 4 .. Therefore get wisdom; and with all thy getting, get understanding!

F i n


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Are you

RobbyPants wrote:

Are you saying that God had no other alternative other than to flood the world? This same god is said to be able to precision-strike individuals to turn them into salt or simply strike them dead. He could have killed all of the wicked people with zero collateral damage, yet he didn't. Why would he suddenly face such a stark limitation in his already established powers?

I think we're forgetting the bigger picture here, that in that particular situation, God wanted to destroy the world!  Plain and clear.  It is apparent that humanity had gotten to such a level of sin and whatever that God had been troubled enough to decide to take action to destroy everything.  

I'm not saying there weren't 1000 different ways God could have gone about it, but what I'm saying is that this was the best way out of the 1000 for Gods intentions... The pillar of salt you're talking about is discussing one individual who decided to go back into what we're figuring is a volcano.  I'm sure she wasn't the only one turned into a pillar of salt.   

Instead of going back on his word, God gave humanity a 2nd chance through Noah and decided to start over with Him instead of scraping the human blueprint altogether.  

RobbyPants wrote:


Where did he intervene with Adam, Eve and their children after the fall? Anything else you are adding in is assumptions on your part. There's no evidence it happened.

you like to jump to conclusions fast don't you.  Is that your only way of defending your understanding?  How about doing some research before concluding assumptions on my part... where in the Bible does it say God stopped intervening?  

To answer your question:  Genesis 4:5-7; "but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard, so Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.  Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry?  And why has your countenance fallen?  If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?  And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door, and its desire is for you, but you must master it."  

Despite the intervention and explanation, Cain went on to kill his brother anyway, 

The chapter goes onto show that God punishes Cain for killing his brother and thus the progression of sin continued.  Evidence that God intervened with Cain and likely others of his decent before people became so corrupt.  He then announced a limitation of time before God was not going to be with man anymore suggesting that His presence was with them in a way that it is not now.  

RobbyPants wrote:


Let's assume those points weren't there though... both our views then would be baseless assumptions and thus we could not conclude on the morality of God based on this incident.
Again, you are asserting it's implied. That's an assumption on your part. I make no such assumptions. I'm simply noting the lack of evidence that he had intervened. It's not a baseless assumption; it's an observation.

you said lets assume those points weren't there... without those points, you would be right, but with those points, the implication is pretty clear.  I am not making assumptions, I am empirically concluding based on evidence and cross referencing throughout scripture.  There is no indication that it was ever different.


RobbyPants wrote:

Which part are you questioning? The part about him being powerful enough or the part where it is either neglect or mailce?

If it's the power part, I mentioned above that he's powerful enough to handle a situation of this magnitude without all the collateral damage.

If it's the neglect/malice part, given that he's powerful enough to have averted this, the fact that it happened was because he wanted it to happen.

I think it's pretty clear he wanted it to happen.  

RobbyPants wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Consider this, if the childrens parents, and their parents, and so on were completely moral and responsible, do you really think these kids would have had a problem?

Now, part of this gets into my next point (that God would have had to intervene after the fact for the world as we know it to come about from the ark*); if God had to intervene to keep all of the carnivores fed and to preserve (or restore?) fragile geological structures, why couldn’t he have intervened for the children? Lets assume the parents were irredeemably wicked (this makes no sense to me, but I’ll roll with it for this purpose), why couldn’t Noah have put all he children on the ark along with the pairs of animals?


without the parents consent, that would be kidnapping.

Just to be clear: are you asserting that kidnapping children (specifically to avoid killing them) is morally as bad or worse than drowning them?

I'm suggesting that it is very likely that if Noah did such a thing that the parents refused to let him take them...  Noah likely didn't knowing that would be the case in the first place... God would have known that too.  

consider for a moment you're a parent... You've done countless bad things in your life, maybe even to your child, but you still love your child.. are you going to let some stranger take your child and put them on this boat with all kinds of possibly dangerous creatures to save them from a flood?  Sounds a little cookoo and I likely wouldn't have been ok with that.  

RobbyPants wrote:


The idea here is that God is purging all of the wicked people, and that children of a young enough age aren't inherently wicked and could be raised properly. You yourself have said that the wicked people deserved this and had it coming, so we'll assume that God plans to drown them. Now, why not rescue the kids (kidnapping aside, the people raising them were "wicked" ) and have Noah raise them in a moral fashion. When CPS takes children from unfit parents, do you consider this the moral equivalent of murdering the children?

keep in mind what we're continuing to discuss is purely hypothetical because we honestly dont' know what the situation was with these children.  I've heard of parents that would threaten to shoot their children if anyone tried to take them from them... are you suggesting these parents wouldn't have tried the same?  I've heard of parents trying to hide their kids from the authorities so that they wouldn't be taken away, would these parents not do the same?  Just because they were corrupt doesn't mean they had no concern for their children necessarily.  We can hypothetically assume they loved their children still, even if they were sending them off for sacrificial ceremony or what have you.  

Strait and true, God wanted humanity gone.  They had become so corrupt that God had basically given up trying because it was obvious humans didn't want anything to do with morality and God.  Instead of wiping out humanity as a whole, he found good in Noah, so He  decided to start over with Noah's family.  I know you're concerned about the rest, but their sentence was carried out.  The children have their parents to blame for their drowning however you want to look at it.  

Considering God being real and the Bible true, if the children were innocent in all of this, then they likely have been living the life with God in heaven, much better than continuing the life they had on Earth.  You see it as murder.  God would have likely just brought them home.  Death unfortunately is the way to life everlasting.  Or are you suggesting despite the rest of what God has told us, they're still dead.

RobbyPants wrote:


That is circular. They could have survived because they were fed from food stores, or because of mana/whatever provided by God. Their mere survival alone doesn't dictate that God couldn't/didn't provide food. Now, depending on how localized you think the flood was, it could be quite possible that there weren't really that many animals on the ark, so, this point could be moot.

You're right

RobbyPants wrote:


I don't know what you mean about the context. Again, depending on how localized the flood was, the water could disperse, and this point may also be moot.

possibly is, context I meant by where you originally stated it and what the focus was/intent of stating it.  

RobbyPants wrote:


What sort of hibernation? This isn't a normal sort of hibernation, so it would have to have been somehow modified by God. This is the sort of intervention I was talking about. 

yea, well this wasn't a "normal" kind of situation.  It is very possible and even likely that God intervened to allow them survival through this situation.  some go as far as to say that God guided the animals literally from all over the world to walk onto the ark.  I feel that though God did, He used a more natural approach which would be retreating from flood waters to higher ground which happened to be where Noah built the ark... good planning on Gods part obviously there.  Point and case, yes God likely had quite a big hand in the whole process, nothing wrong with that perspective.  To which extent and how? we can only speculate.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yet you

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you insist that everyone in the world tens of thousands of years ago heard of the warning that the whole world was going to flood and knew of Noah? Can't you see the huge disconnect?

I see why you see a disconnect.  The problem with that is, just like millions of people around the world can have a conversation with God at the same time, people during that time could too... there are suggestions in text that say God was more in the presence of humanity then than now.  Also, I'm thinking it was likely moreso closer to 150,000 years ago or further.  (a guess), understanding the history of humanity and how the Bible describes the spread, humanity hadn't spread yet to many different cultures around the world, they were still likely in a very localized place.  The town crier could have gotten the news to everone over time.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The same is also true of virtually every other country on the planet if you call what has happened in Israel to be constant war. A prediction is meaningless if it applies to everyone, it would be like me predicting that your heart is going to beat while you read this post. (Aha! I predicted the future I must be a great prophet!)

except that i went into a meditative state and stopped my heart for a period of 10 seconds yet still read through it... no ok, I didn't but people can do it.

joking aside, sure, you can make predictions of this and that and be pretty assured they're going to come true, but being a prophet means you're making a prediction others can't make.   How can someone thousands of years ago guarantee no peace for a particular people until the return of Christ and be right?  That's not something everyone can do.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

And there certainly has been periods of extended peace in the geographic area that is Israel. Most notably off the top of my head are the 300 odd years it was under the Ottoman Empire. While the Empire had several wars with Russia and the occasional revolt to put down, the area that we know as Israel today was quite peaceful. So if you include being part of an empire which is involved in a war somewhere in the world as not being peaceful, then few countries have ever experienced peace. And define "constant", how long does a break have to be for it to no longer be constant? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? Ultimately, the predictions mean nothing and that they came true mean nothing. 

Are you suggesting that people during that time had this kind of knowledge as well? That being that few countries (which countries didn't exist yet) don't ever experience peace.   They also weren't saying that in comparison to any other country, but about the future life of Israelites.  Are you suggesting that in that time, it was common knowledge that most cultures would never experience true peace throughout their futuristic existence?  You can make that prediction now???


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Well God

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well God certainly isn't winning the Nobel Peace prize anytime soon, that would be even more laughable than giving it to Obama, the committee might stoop low, but never that low. I know that a lot of people wouldn't have been slaughtered by God if he chose not to slaughter them. I don't need to know more than that to make a moral judgement. Do you have to know all the possibilities of what the people who died in the Holocaust would have done with their lives to condemn it? 

sounds like you're suggesting that the people who died in the holocaust deserved it in some way.    I don't believe they did anything wrong to get into the position they were in, whereas the situation with God is they did.  

However, I do need to know all the possibilities of why someone who is in court with the possibility of being sentenced to death had done, and is going to do about it.  There's a reason why there's a trial before it happens.    We don't just blindly kill people like you're suggesting here.... oh, but of course, you're suggesting God did... but what was the reason?  Do you really know what happened to cause God to make such a choice?  Yes, you can make assumptions, but do you really know?

Beyond Saving wrote:

God is omnipotent and he was incapable of saving them? Do you believe that children are evil from birth?

is that what you believe?  God was incapable of saving them?  or did He chose to let the parents choose the fate of their children?  I believe children pay the conseqences of their generations past no matter how indirectly.  The child themselves might be innocent, but they still reap the consequences... or benefits of generations past and what they've done in their lives.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then why didn't he instill it in me? 

You still have a choice in the matter. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then why does he support a morality that is consistent with the morality of someone raised in a war torn village, but inconsistent with the moralities of most people raised in a wealthy, safe, highly educated country?

I think you'd have to be more specific as to what morality issue you're discussing here... if you're suggesting no value on life, he doesnt'.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

that would be appropriate, but the scenario to parallel the topic in question would be more like the train operator doing their job and parents letting their kids play on a random part of the tracks where it is well known that trains run at about 60 mph and visibility is short... also the schedule of the train is perfect.  if kids got hit by the train, who's fault would it be in this scenario? The train operator or the parents? 

If the train operator knows that the kid is there and has the power to stop the train on time, then the train operator is immoral if he/she fails to stop the train. Whether the parents are stupid for letting their kids play on the track or negligent in not paying attention as their kids play on the track is irrelevant to determining the morality of the train operator's actions. It is possible that both the train operator and the parents are immoral, it isn't an either/or. God knew, and he had the power to stop it. Would you excuse the train operator if you asked and they said "Well, I knew I could stop before I hit the child, but I figured the parents were being irresponsible so I decided not to hit the brakes to teach the parent a lesson."?

my scenario I tried to make very clear that the train operator had no control over stopping the train on time.  I think you know the answer to that.

With your runaround back to God being that train operator, if it was such a situation, God would have stopped the train, but considering that it's more of a situation where it was a judge carrying out a sentence, or the Law coming down, children were protected by their parents, but in this case, the parents failed their children.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

And many people in the train industry go through great pains to be safe and make sure that they don't hurt people with a number of safety precautions. They do everything humanely possible to minimize risk, because they know that stupid people and kids often mess around near or on train tracks. My ex-father in law nearly died when a kid got his shoe stuck in the tracks at the station where he worked and the train was not able to stop on time. And accidents still happen, and no doubt everyone involved felt terrible about it, even if they did everything possible to try to stop it. The difference is, that humans are not omnipotent. A train cannot stop on a dime, and it is very difficult to tell what is on the tracks around the curve and there is always the possibility of human error. God on the other hand is omnipotent. He could stop the metaphorical train, and he does know who is on the tracks, where they are and exactly what time they are going to get hit. If a train operator had that kind of knowledge, there would be zero accidents, unless he/she is as immoral as god. 

We can run around with this all day.. you're going to determine that God is immoral for passing judgement on families and that's fine.  The point is, God meant to do it.  God had decided to wipe out humanity.  He had no intention of stopping it.  Even when he found Noah to be righteous he still didn't intend to stop it.  Instead he decided to give humanity a second chance through Noah and his family.   But that's what it really was, by the grace of God you were born today through many second chances humanity has been given.  What you do with your life today determines the quality of life for tomorrow.  There's no way around it no matter how hard you try to excuse yourself from it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't have to go far at all. I only have to look at one small portion of the population he exterminated; children. That is only a tiny step into all the people that he murdered. I don't have to assume that those children were particularly good, or different than usual. I just have to assume that children existed and that children back then were not dramatically more mentally developed than children today. That is hardly a stretch. 

sure, so humanity is innocent in all of this then... is that what you're suggesting? I get that your'e stuck on kids getting killed here.  How many more children have died throughout the ages due to human choices compared to this situation?   How many more children could have died due to God not killing the children in this flood?  None would be illogical.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Is there any good reason to drown a child? If you can't come up with one, isn't that a good reason to at least doubt that God made a good choice? (Not necessarily come to the determination that God made a bad choice as I do, but to at least have a reasonable doubt that the choice was good?) 

ok, let's be reasonable.  stemming off of what I just said, if drowning one child was guaranteed to save 3 more children that otherwise would die possibly terrible deaths, would you allow it?  

don't get distracted with the details behind this scenario, just take it as it is... if you knew that allowing this one child to drown saved 3 others from terrible deaths, would you allow it or would you allow this one child to live and in turn allow 3 other children to die?  Pick your choice.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I think we're

caposkia wrote:

I think we're forgetting the bigger picture here, that in that particular situation, God wanted to destroy the world! Plain and clear. It is apparent that humanity had gotten to such a level of sin and whatever that God had been troubled enough to decide to take action to destroy everything.

I'm not saying there weren't 1000 different ways God could have gone about it, but what I'm saying is that this was the best way out of the 1000 for Gods intentions... The pillar of salt you're talking about is discussing one individual who decided to go back into what we're figuring is a volcano. I'm sure she wasn't the only one turned into a pillar of salt.

Wait. Are you saying God was incapable of precision striking adults? If so, why? If not, then he could have dealt with the wicked adults in one manner and the children in another.

Which is it? Is God not powerful enough to descriminate on targets or was he simply unwilling? There's no magical option three.


caposkia wrote:
Instead of going back on his word, God gave humanity a 2nd chance through Noah and decided to start over with Him instead of scraping the human blueprint altogether.

Did he actually give his word earlier that he was going to destroy all of humanity? If so, where did he say this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't remember that part.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

Where did he intervene with Adam, Eve and their children after the fall? Anything else you are adding in is assumptions on your part. There's no evidence it happened.

you like to jump to conclusions fast don't you. Is that your only way of defending your understanding? How about doing some research before concluding assumptions on my part... where in the Bible does it say God stopped intervening?

To answer your question: Genesis 4:5-7; "but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard, so Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door, and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

Despite the intervention and explanation, Cain went on to kill his brother anyway,

The chapter goes onto show that God punishes Cain for killing his brother and thus the progression of sin continued. Evidence that God intervened with Cain and likely others of his decent before people became so corrupt. He then announced a limitation of time before God was not going to be with man anymore suggesting that His presence was with them in a way that it is not now.

You're missing how assumptions work. God is shown to intervene with Cain there... and that's it. He isn't shown to intervene elsewhere. You assuming he did is... you assuming. Until you can prove that he did, you are making a baseless assertion. I don't need to assert that he didn't intervene; I simply have to say there was no evidence that he did.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

Let's assume those points weren't there though... both our views then would be baseless assumptions and thus we could not conclude on the morality of God based on this incident.
Again, you are asserting it's implied. That's an assumption on your part. I make no such assumptions. I'm simply noting the lack of evidence that he had intervened. It's not a baseless assumption; it's an observation.

you said lets assume those points weren't there... without those points, you would be right, but with those points, the implication is pretty clear. I am not making assumptions, I am empirically concluding based on evidence and cross referencing throughout scripture. There is no indication that it was ever different.

I meant that for sake of argument. Still, you're asserting there was intervention between Cain and the flood, but there is no evidence of it. If you cannot prove that assertion, I can simply dismiss that assertion. I'm not saying 100% that it didn't happen; I'm saying there's no evidence that it happened.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

Which part are you questioning? The part about him being powerful enough or the part where it is either neglect or mailce?

If it's the power part, I mentioned above that he's powerful enough to handle a situation of this magnitude without all the collateral damage.

If it's the neglect/malice part, given that he's powerful enough to have averted this, the fact that it happened was because he wanted it to happen.



I think it's pretty clear he wanted it to happen.

Yes. He wanted children to die. The god you believe in is a monster. You can make the point that one should want to genuflect out of fear, but you cannot make that point out of love.


RobbyPants wrote:
caposkia wrote:

Just to be clear: are you asserting that kidnapping children (specifically to avoid killing them) is morally as bad or worse than drowning them?

I'm suggesting that it is very likely that if Noah did such a thing that the parents refused to let him take them... Noah likely didn't knowing that would be the case in the first place... God would have known that too.

consider for a moment you're a parent... You've done countless bad things in your life, maybe even to your child, but you still love your child.. are you going to let some stranger take your child and put them on this boat with all kinds of possibly dangerous creatures to save them from a flood? Sounds a little cookoo and I likely wouldn't have been ok with that.

You're missing the context here. This parallels the flood story; the one where God killed all the adults. So, now that they're out of the picture, they aren't there to object to Noah taking and raising the kids in a less-than-wicked fashion.

Now that they're not there, which is better: for these kids to be raised in a moral fashion by a man deemed moral by Almighty God himself, or for Almighty God to drown them?
 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you insist that everyone in the world tens of thousands of years ago heard of the warning that the whole world was going to flood and knew of Noah? Can't you see the huge disconnect?

I see why you see a disconnect.  The problem with that is, just like millions of people around the world can have a conversation with God at the same time, people during that time could too... there are suggestions in text that say God was more in the presence of humanity then than now.  Also, I'm thinking it was likely moreso closer to 150,000 years ago or further.  (a guess), understanding the history of humanity and how the Bible describes the spread, humanity hadn't spread yet to many different cultures around the world, they were still likely in a very localized place.  The town crier could have gotten the news to everone over time.

Sure, the town crier could have gotten the news to everyone if towns existed. Unfortunately for the poor bastards that god farming wouldn't be discovered and towns wouldn't come into existence for another 140,000 years or so and there was no such thing as a written language. And even at that time, humanity was spread pretty far, horses were not domesticated (that wouldn't happen for about 145,000 years) nor were sheep, goats, cows, oxen, pigs, camels or any other animal domesticated. That meant that humans had to literally walk everywhere. The population was spread from Africa up to northern Europe, through Russia and China. Walking that far today would be a huge achievement and take years even if you went in a straight line. If you are stopping at every tribe and family group to tell them the news it would take a lifetime or two. Not to mention the sheer impossibility of finding all of the tribes. You could walk within a few miles of them and have no clue they were there. Then take into account that you are going through rough terrain long before there were any roads and your story goes from ridiculous to the utterly absurd.

 

caposkia wrote:

except that i went into a meditative state and stopped my heart for a period of 10 seconds yet still read through it... no ok, I didn't but people can do it.

joking aside, sure, you can make predictions of this and that and be pretty assured they're going to come true, but being a prophet means you're making a prediction others can't make.   How can someone thousands of years ago guarantee no peace for a particular people until the return of Christ and be right?  That's not something everyone can do.  

I predict that the English people will not have any peace until I come back to life. 

See I just did it. And 2,000 years from now I'm sure that some poor sap doing a research paper on ancient internet use is going to be less than impressed that my prediction was accurate. (especially if you consider 300 years of relative peace to be "constant war&quotEye-wink

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

And there certainly has been periods of extended peace in the geographic area that is Israel. Most notably off the top of my head are the 300 odd years it was under the Ottoman Empire. While the Empire had several wars with Russia and the occasional revolt to put down, the area that we know as Israel today was quite peaceful. So if you include being part of an empire which is involved in a war somewhere in the world as not being peaceful, then few countries have ever experienced peace. And define "constant", how long does a break have to be for it to no longer be constant? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? Ultimately, the predictions mean nothing and that they came true mean nothing. 

Are you suggesting that people during that time had this kind of knowledge as well? That being that few countries (which countries didn't exist yet) don't ever experience peace.   They also weren't saying that in comparison to any other country, but about the future life of Israelites.  Are you suggesting that in that time, it was common knowledge that most cultures would never experience true peace throughout their futuristic existence?  You can make that prediction now???

All they needed to know to make the prediction with confidence is that there wasn't any peace during their lifetimes, which anyone capable of writing would have been educated enough to know.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well God certainly isn't winning the Nobel Peace prize anytime soon, that would be even more laughable than giving it to Obama, the committee might stoop low, but never that low. I know that a lot of people wouldn't have been slaughtered by God if he chose not to slaughter them. I don't need to know more than that to make a moral judgement. Do you have to know all the possibilities of what the people who died in the Holocaust would have done with their lives to condemn it? 

sounds like you're suggesting that the people who died in the holocaust deserved it in some way.    I don't believe they did anything wrong to get into the position they were in, whereas the situation with God is they did.

I'm not suggesting they deserved it at all. Just pointing out how ridiculous your assertion that everyone god drowned deserved it because at some point in the future they would do something bad.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

However, I do need to know all the possibilities of why someone who is in court with the possibility of being sentenced to death had done, and is going to do about it.  There's a reason why there's a trial before it happens.    We don't just blindly kill people like you're suggesting here.... oh, but of course, you're suggesting God did... but what was the reason?  Do you really know what happened to cause God to make such a choice?  Yes, you can make assumptions, but do you really know?

I know that the story is completely fabricated and never happened. I am going solely on the story you tell me is true, and in that story the main character (god) is a villain. You told me he killed everyone except Noah and his family. I don't need to make any assumptions at all to determine that killing all of humanity is bad. All I have to do is make the determination that humans are good and humans living is better than humans drowning. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

God is omnipotent and he was incapable of saving them? Do you believe that children are evil from birth?

is that what you believe?  God was incapable of saving them?  or did He chose to let the parents choose the fate of their children?  I believe children pay the conseqences of their generations past no matter how indirectly.  The child themselves might be innocent, but they still reap the consequences... or benefits of generations past and what they've done in their lives.  

If you have the power to protect a child from specific consequences of their parents bad decisions, would you? Suppose for example a child was going to be an orphan because their parents were killed while drunk driving and you were in a position to improve that child's life without any cost to yourself, would you? Or would you shrug your shoulders and leave the child to fend for themselves because the parents were bad?

 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then why didn't he instill it in me? 

You still have a choice in the matter. 

How?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then why does he support a morality that is consistent with the morality of someone raised in a war torn village, but inconsistent with the moralities of most people raised in a wealthy, safe, highly educated country?

I think you'd have to be more specific as to what morality issue you're discussing here... if you're suggesting no value on life, he doesnt'.

He supports stoning and drowning.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

my scenario I tried to make very clear that the train operator had no control over stopping the train on time.  I think you know the answer to that.

With your runaround back to God being that train operator, if it was such a situation, God would have stopped the train, but considering that it's more of a situation where it was a judge carrying out a sentence, or the Law coming down, children were protected by their parents, but in this case, the parents failed their children.  

And your scenario was pointless and made the analogy irrelevant. God is not a helpless train operator who can't stop the train. He can stop it, but he didn't. Whether the parents are responsible for their child being in danger is irrelevant. If the parents tied the child to the train tracks, the train operator would be morally obligated to try to stop the train. 

 

caposkia wrote:

We can run around with this all day.. you're going to determine that God is immoral for passing judgement on families and that's fine.  The point is, God meant to do it.  God had decided to wipe out humanity.  He had no intention of stopping it.  Even when he found Noah to be righteous he still didn't intend to stop it.  Instead he decided to give humanity a second chance through Noah and his family.   But that's what it really was, by the grace of God you were born today through many second chances humanity has been given.  What you do with your life today determines the quality of life for tomorrow.  There's no way around it no matter how hard you try to excuse yourself from it.

So by the grace of a mass murderer I am alive today and I should consider that mass murderer loving? I don't consider killing everyone except one family "grace".

 

caposkia wrote:

sure, so humanity is innocent in all of this then... is that what you're suggesting? I get that your'e stuck on kids getting killed here.  How many more children have died throughout the ages due to human choices compared to this situation?   How many more children could have died due to God not killing the children in this flood?  None would be illogical.  

Does it matter?

 

caposkia wrote:

ok, let's be reasonable.  stemming off of what I just said, if drowning one child was guaranteed to save 3 more children that otherwise would die possibly terrible deaths, would you allow it?  

don't get distracted with the details behind this scenario, just take it as it is... if you knew that allowing this one child to drown saved 3 others from terrible deaths, would you allow it or would you allow this one child to live and in turn allow 3 other children to die?  Pick your choice.

I would save the child. If I had a time machine and the child was Hitler I would save him. The only reason not to would be if you believed in 100% predetermination, but if it is predetermined then whether or not I choose to save the child is predetermined and I don't actually have a choice. You have claimed that God gives us freewill. So given that, at most he knew there was a possibility that the children would grow up evil, he did not know for sure that the children would be evil when he killed them. If god did know, for certain, how much damage those kids would have caused if they lived, then why did he create humans in the first place because he must have known he would later drown almost all of them. That is beyond sadistic. If is like going to the pet store and buying a dog just to take home and drown in the bathtub.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Where in the definition of omniscience does it say you can predict the future?  Which btw, The Bible does make clear that God can determine certain futures and thus make them happen if He so chooses despite what happens in between.    

It says in the word itself. Omni means all, and scient means knowing. If you claim not to know everything that will happen, then you don't know everything, even if it doesn't exist yet. I know (within a miniscule margin of error, but I'd be willing to bet every dollar I own to anyone that takes me up on it) that in 24 hours, someone on this planet will be asleep. At least one person at any given time on this planet, is asleep. Can god know that? If so, is it because he can deduce it like us mere mortals? Or is it because of his omniscience? If it's the latter, then where is the limit on it?

Also, if he can determine certain futures, but not all, the question is the same as above. What is the limit on his omniscience?

omniscience is a man made term.  All knowing is quite vague.  It implies "everything there is to know"  which raises the question, is the future available to know.  Some say yes, some say no.  can we empirically determine that the future applies to omniscience?  no, not that I'm aware of.  However, omniscience can also mean all knowing in the sense that you are so aware of everything that is and was that you can logically deduce a pretty clear path of what the future will hold considering every aspect of creation. Like your knowledge of the fact that somewhere in the world at all times there has to be at least 1 person sleeping... I can deduce from my knowledge that there must be at least 1000 people sleeping because of what I am aware of.  This is one angle we can take on God.  

the other is considering the scientific understanding of "time".  Einstein concluded that we are moving through time, not the other way around and that if we were able to reach a specific speed, time would slow down or even stop.  If this is true, we can picture time as maybe a circle, where everything on the outside of the circle is moving through time at a specific pace.  Picture a being in the center of the circle.  Time would logically not progress in the center and a being in the center would be able to observe all time, past present and future without having to reap the consequences of progressing time.  That being may also be able to jump into any part of the timeline/circle and manipulate it to change future events.  

the thing with the second perspective is then you must accept predestination... which means that though we think we are free, we really are robots stuck on a set path oblivious to the choices we make being puppeted by an external source.  

I adhere moreso to the first understanding that God knows creation so well that he can deduce a pretty clear timeline.  He also does have the ability to mainpulate the timeline to ultimately work out in His favor.  With that said, He could go to the degree where He predetermines all of our actions and futures, or He could allow us to make choices and only manipulate the timeline to allow what He says will come to pass happen.  I believe He allows us to make choices for ourselves.  I could be wrong!  But that then does raise up a lot of questions.  

With the first understanding, assume you ask a 2 year old if there's someone sleeping in the world right now... they likely would answer no, why?  because as far as they're concerned, everyone is awake because it's day time, they aren't aware yet that when it's daytime here, it's night time somewhere else.  When it comes to understanding the omniscience of God, i believe it is logical to conclude that we are comparably as knowledgeable about the vast knowledge of God and what there is to know about our universe and why things are as a 2 year old is to whether people are sleeping somewhere in the world in the middle of our daytime.  We can ultimately determine that God made a bad choice in situation X, but that'd be like a 2 year old determining that you were wrong about people sleeping.  They just don't know enough to determine that.

Jabberwocky wrote:

If you know everything (absolutely everything) about the now, you also know what comes next. I know if I drain the oil out of my car, and drive it without, the engine will seize up given enough time. However, if I had full 100% knowledge of the state of every molecule and exactly how much friction is generated by this problem, I would be able to say exactly how long it would take. If god doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow, then he is lacking in knowledge of my brain chemistry right now. So now, he doesn't know the future, or fully know the present. Either that, or he knows the present, but his own computing power isn't enough to deduce the future from it (which would hit him right in the omnipotence). His full knowledge of the past and present also requires him to be able to know the future as well if he is all powerful. You seem to have a big problem understanding the concept of "all". 

 

If He has to determine what you will do tomorrow, I bet He'd have a pretty good idea.  I believe He would also be able to tell you pretty much every step you'd take... however, He also knows of every other choice you could make in any situation.  You being a free thinking person, any one element of change could allow you to make a different choice, which then could change the whole futuristic timeline that was originally determined.  consider how many choices an average person makes in a day... no one really knows for sure, but the general consensus is thousands.  It is said that a person daily makes over 300 different choices that can determine their weight... this being in reference to whether they end up overweight, underweight or just right for their body type.  One of those 300 choices by itself does not make someone fat, but compiled day after day after day has made people obese.  You can apply this logic to anything in a day.  You can make good choices and the compilation will likely have good results, you can make bad choices and the compilation will likely end up negative in some way... but one bad choice does not determine typically what your future will hold unless it was a big choice.  Out of those 1000's of choices, God likely knows the general path I'm sure, but over time, small deviations can lead to big changes far down the line.  

Those of us who ask God for guidance give our lives to God, in turn I believe that allows God to modify some of my choices for me.  I am willingly allowing God to do that for me.  This allows my futuristic path to be more directly in line with where God wants me.  I do believe however, those who don't want God to 'modify their choices' have no guidance and can have quite aimless futures.  They may not think so, but it could likely end up far off from where God wants them.  

This is getting quite long, but you must understand that it's not as easy as you're trying to make it out to be.  We don't know for sure how God determines the future, but calling Him omniscient and having that supported by scripture does not determine that the future is written out for all of us... some would disagree with me, but talking about evidence and not assumptions here, there's nothing that clearly states that predestination is a reality.  At least not in the Bible


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Wait. Are

RobbyPants wrote:

Wait. Are you saying God was incapable of precision striking adults? If so, why? If not, then he could have dealt with the wicked adults in one manner and the children in another.

Which is it? Is God not powerful enough to descriminate on targets or was he simply unwilling? There's no magical option three.

unwilling.  He had determined that humanity needed to be wiped out and then gave humanity a second chance only through Noah and his family.  The other families had sealed their fate.  

RobbyPants wrote:


Did he actually give his word earlier that he was going to destroy all of humanity? If so, where did he say this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't remember that part.

Genesis 6:3;  "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever because he also is flesh;  nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty-years."  

Genesis 6:13; "Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the Earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the Earth."  

Gen. 13 was before Noah even had the plans to build an ark, which gave Noah enough time to mention it if He felt so inclined... also God gave man 120 years... some try to associate that with the lifespan of humans...which seems true today, but there are people mentioned after that was said living much longer than that.  I believe it was God stating in that moment that in 120 years this event were to happen.  This would have allowed plenty of time for a generation to change its ways and not continue as their parents and ancestors had.  

RobbyPants wrote:


You're missing how assumptions work. God is shown to intervene with Cain there... and that's it. He isn't shown to intervene elsewhere. You assuming he did is... you assuming. Until you can prove that he did, you are making a baseless assertion. I don't need to assert that he didn't intervene; I simply have to say there was no evidence that he did.

it's not baseless if I have a statement showing God intervening with someone.  The base is that throughout scripture, God has attempted to intervene here and there.  There is nothing to suggest He hasn't, or that it stopped with Cain.

RobbyPants wrote:


I meant that for sake of argument. Still, you're asserting there was intervention between Cain and the flood, but there is no evidence of it. If you cannot prove that assertion, I can simply dismiss that assertion. I'm not saying 100% that it didn't happen; I'm saying there's no evidence that it happened.

If interventions happened before... and after... how can you simply dismiss that they happened during?

RobbyPants wrote:

Yes. He wanted children to die. The god you believe in is a monster. You can make the point that one should want to genuflect out of fear, but you cannot make that point out of love.

I don't remember reading that his affliction was against children.  Where was that stated?

RobbyPants wrote:

You're missing the context here. This parallels the flood story; the one where God killed all the adults. So, now that they're out of the picture, they aren't there to object to Noah taking and raising the kids in a less-than-wicked fashion.

Now that they're not there, which is better: for these kids to be raised in a moral fashion by a man deemed moral by Almighty God himself, or for Almighty God to drown them?
 

Ah, I see, you want to take all responsibility off the parents and try to put it squarely on God.  I guess then the other question comes up, how many children can one person take care of?  Noah already had quite a large family.  

yes, ok, so I'm guessing that's ignoring your context again... Let's meet this head on then.

If God is real, then all these people that died are not exactly "dead", but living spiritually (or sleeping to be woken up at a later date) whatever you believe.  Either way, the parents would be aware of what happened to their children.  If the children were innocent in all of this, they also would know that their children are with God and that they can never see them again.  The consequence of their actions did not just affect them, but their whole family.  To know that your child drown because of what you did, is that worse than taking the responsibility yourself and your child living on?  I think so. 

I think in the long run, more children were saved by these children dying.  People have a talent for manipulating results to fit their ideals... God knows how to get around that.  E.g. you have a talent for making this issue about the children and trying to make the parents blameless in what happened to the children.  Those results as much as you try cannot be pinned on God because in the end, it was generations who had a choice to keep their future offspring safe from the judgement of God and they chose not to.  God is the judge and the executioner.. in humanistic standards, neither one is typically blamed for the death of others because they're doing their job by upholding the law.  God does not show favoritism.  God makes it clear that what you do affects everything.  This is one of many examples. 

So I answer to let these kids drown.  You I'm sure will make this an issue about my morals, but in the end, would you allow one child to drown to save 3 childrens lives or would you allow that one child to live and allow those 3 others to die?

This ties into what God did because I believe that more children were saved because of what God did... people know that Gods judgement is a blanket and will not just affect themselves and likely have chosen different paths because of that.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Sure,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sure, the town crier could have gotten the news to everyone if towns existed. Unfortunately for the poor bastards that god farming wouldn't be discovered and towns wouldn't come into existence for another 140,000 years or so and there was no such thing as a written language. And even at that time, humanity was spread pretty far, horses were not domesticated (that wouldn't happen for about 145,000 years) nor were sheep, goats, cows, oxen, pigs, camels or any other animal domesticated. That meant that humans had to literally walk everywhere. The population was spread from Africa up to northern Europe, through Russia and China. Walking that far today would be a huge achievement and take years even if you went in a straight line. If you are stopping at every tribe and family group to tell them the news it would take a lifetime or two. Not to mention the sheer impossibility of finding all of the tribes. You could walk within a few miles of them and have no clue they were there. Then take into account that you are going through rough terrain long before there were any roads and your story goes from ridiculous to the utterly absurd.

Where are you getting your data from on this?  I don't think people were as spread out as you're suggesting here.  If my guess is right and the flood occured roughly 150,000 years ago, or even 125,000 years ago, the population would still not have spread much beyond Africa or maybe at most the Arabian boarders.  It is suggested by the link I added below that at about 75000 years ago people had spread as far as Malaysia but no evidence of further migration before that... and that could have just happened, we don't know... so at even 125000 years we can assume at most they migrated half that distance.  the populations were also not that big.  it is said in the link that at about 150000 years ago the people who everyone's DNA in the world can be linked to were numbered at about 10,000.  They all still lived in that region of africa at that time.  That wouldn't be impossible to cover in the alleged 120 years God gave man if Gen 6:3 is talking about the coming of the flood.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/662

Beyond Saving wrote:

I predict that the English people will not have any peace until I come back to life. 

See I just did it. And 2,000 years from now I'm sure that some poor sap doing a research paper on ancient internet use is going to be less than impressed that my prediction was accurate. (especially if you consider 300 years of relative peace to be "constant war&quotEye-wink

You yourself admitted that though there was peace in the land, the nation was not at peace due to the conflict with Russia.  

You did it, but based on what?  That person could be less than impressed or they might become a believer after your prediction ended up being wrong and there was peace for some English speaking people.  I'd say that Australia is at peace now. (I'm not aware of any conflicts they're involved in but didn't do the research)  Same with Canada.  So if that's true, your prediction already failed.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

All they needed to know to make the prediction with confidence is that there wasn't any peace during their lifetimes, which anyone capable of writing would have been educated enough to know.

ok, then this prophesy is not something we should waste our time on if that's how easy it is... in fact, it's likely not a prophesy and I'm just mistaking it as one.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm not suggesting they deserved it at all. Just pointing out how ridiculous your assertion that everyone god drowned deserved it because at some point in the future they would do something bad.

The Bible makes that assertion, not me;

Gen. 6:5; "Then teh Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously."

Beyond Saving wrote:

I know that the story is completely fabricated and never happened. I am going solely on the story you tell me is true, and in that story the main character (god) is a villain. You told me he killed everyone except Noah and his family. I don't need to make any assumptions at all to determine that killing all of humanity is bad. All I have to do is make the determination that humans are good and humans living is better than humans drowning. 

you can do that, but I just quoted a verse contradicting your conclusion.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you have the power to protect a child from specific consequences of their parents bad decisions, would you? Suppose for example a child was going to be an orphan because their parents were killed while drunk driving and you were in a position to improve that child's life without any cost to yourself, would you? Or would you shrug your shoulders and leave the child to fend for themselves because the parents were bad?

I am not God.  I am not passing judgement on families nor do I have the power to execute consequences on a family, so I would of course do everything in my power to protect a child.  That is my role as a human. 

God allows for us to pay the consequences of our own actions as well as the actions of others.  It is worse for a parent to know that becasue of their actions, their children must suffer. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then why didn't he instill it in me? 

You still have a choice in the matter. 

How?

You can choose to allow God to guide your heart or choose to guide it yourself... or let evil guide it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

He supports stoning and drowning.

We support electricution and lethal injection.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

And your scenario was pointless and made the analogy irrelevant. God is not a helpless train operator who can't stop the train. He can stop it, but he didn't. Whether the parents are responsible for their child being in danger is irrelevant. If the parents tied the child to the train tracks, the train operator would be morally obligated to try to stop the train. 

it did make the analogy irrelevent.  I'm glad you can see that.  

God is not the train operator, He is a judge in a court of law.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So by the grace of a mass murderer I am alive today and I should consider that mass murderer loving? I don't consider killing everyone except one family "grace".

So killing everyone would have been the better choice?   I know killing no one.. but again, that goes back to the results of that choice... The Bible states that every thought was evil... how many more people could have suffered as a consequence of an alternative that you're suggesting???  People are still going to be people and still do bad things... I believe it was the most logical choice... I believe more were saved in future generations... I can't back that up just as much as you can't back up that another option would have been better.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

sure, so humanity is innocent in all of this then... is that what you're suggesting? I get that your'e stuck on kids getting killed here.  How many more children have died throughout the ages due to human choices compared to this situation?   How many more children could have died due to God not killing the children in this flood?  None would be illogical.  

Does it matter?

only if more children dying really matters i guess.  Doesn't it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I would save the child. If I had a time machine and the child was Hitler I would save him. The only reason not to would be if you believed in 100% predetermination, but if it is predetermined then whether or not I choose to save the child is predetermined and I don't actually have a choice. You have claimed that God gives us freewill. So given that, at most he knew there was a possibility that the children would grow up evil, he did not know for sure that the children would be evil when he killed them. If god did know, for certain, how much damage those kids would have caused if they lived, then why did he create humans in the first place because he must have known he would later drown almost all of them. That is beyond sadistic. If is like going to the pet store and buying a dog just to take home and drown in the bathtub.  

That's just it.. you hit the nail on the head... the Bible states that God "was sorry that He had made man on the earth. and He was greived in His heart".  

God was sorry that He created man.  It sounds to me as if He had higher hopes for us... but we failed Him.  I believe He created humans for a greater purpose than we are even living out today.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
11 ways you are thoroughly (but interestingly) wrong

 Considering the direction of some of the discussion in the past on this thread among other threads and considering the possible direction some could go in.  I feel it's important for us to all focus on what to avoid in discussion.  If we're all honest with each other, we have to admit we're all guilty of at least one of these one time or another amidst these difficult discussions.

http://twentytwowords.com/2012/04/23/11-ways-you-are-thoroughly-but-interestingly-wrong/


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Considering

caposkia wrote:

 Considering the direction of some of the discussion in the past on this thread among other threads and considering the possible direction some could go in.  I feel it's important for us to all focus on what to avoid in discussion.  If we're all honest with each other, we have to admit we're all guilty of at least one of these one time or another amidst these difficult discussions.

http://twentytwowords.com/2012/04/23/11-ways-you-are-thoroughly-but-interestingly-wrong/

 

Missed a couple - confirmation bias, belief perseverance, and self justification. Read your own posts and think carefully.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:caposkia

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 Considering the direction of some of the discussion in the past on this thread among other threads and considering the possible direction some could go in.  I feel it's important for us to all focus on what to avoid in discussion.  If we're all honest with each other, we have to admit we're all guilty of at least one of these one time or another amidst these difficult discussions.

http://twentytwowords.com/2012/04/23/11-ways-you-are-thoroughly-but-interestingly-wrong/

 

Missed a couple - confirmation bias, belief perseverance, and self justification. Read your own posts and think carefully.

 

Yep! I didn't see special pleading in that list either, but it should be brought up as well. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Where are you

caposkia wrote:

Where are you getting your data from on this?  I don't think people were as spread out as you're suggesting here.  If my guess is right and the flood occured roughly 150,000 years ago, or even 125,000 years ago, the population would still not have spread much beyond Africa or maybe at most the Arabian boarders.  It is suggested by the link I added below that at about 75000 years ago people had spread as far as Malaysia but no evidence of further migration before that... and that could have just happened, we don't know... so at even 125000 years we can assume at most they migrated half that distance.  the populations were also not that big.  it is said in the link that at about 150000 years ago the people who everyone's DNA in the world can be linked to were numbered at about 10,000.  They all still lived in that region of africa at that time.  That wouldn't be impossible to cover in the alleged 120 years God gave man if Gen 6:3 is talking about the coming of the flood.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/662

 

There are these nifty things called scientific journals where scientists discuss their recent finds. While I am hardly an expert on archaeology, I do pay attention to the more significant finds. Human ancestors were using axes in Spain 800,000 years ago. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/full/nature08214.html

We also know that at that time they were traveling the African-Near East corridor because Acheulean tools that we believe originated in Africa have been found in various locations. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5481/944

A subspecies of Homo Erectus has been found in Indonesia and is dated 1.6-1.8 million years ago and some argue that it was the first human ancestors to build rafts. (Although it should be noted that most now agree that this subspecies died out and is not a direct ancestor of modern humans.) 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5772/361

There is significant evidence that Neanderthals were widespread throughout Europe and more recent evidence suggests their territory expanded all the way to Siberia. Neanderthals are direct ancestors of ours which interbred with the anatomically modern humans coming out of Africa and eventually being replaced sometime around 30,000 BC. 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12711-neanderthals-roamed-as-far-as-siberia.html#.UgzaK9KR_7A

You can make "assumptions" (read ignore reality) all you want. There is significant evidence that the ancestors of humans were spread throughout the entire landmass millions of years before you are suggesting the flood happened. So are you now going to suggest that the flood happened 2 million years ago?

 

caposkia wrote:

You yourself admitted that though there was peace in the land, the nation was not at peace due to the conflict with Russia.  

Well define "peace". Are we at peace in the US right now? Kind of. The vast majority of Americans don't experience any discomfort due to our current military actions. Most people don't think about it and it doesn't even rate making the front page of the newspaper on most days. So is anytime a nation has military conflict with another count as not being at peace? And for how long? Even in the middle of an active war there can be months at a time where no one on either side dies in conflict. This was even more true in history where many of the "wars" were really a series of military conflicts that could be separated by decades where the armies never clashed. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You did it, but based on what?  That person could be less than impressed or they might become a believer after your prediction ended up being wrong and there was peace for some English speaking people.  I'd say that Australia is at peace now. (I'm not aware of any conflicts they're involved in but didn't do the research)  Same with Canada.  So if that's true, your prediction already failed.

An Australian soldier just died in combat a little over a month ago. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-23/australian-soldier-killed-in-afghanistan/4774126 

So if that counts as "peace" then the Jewish people have been at peace thousands of times and the prediction is flat out wrong. 

Canada has also been active in Afghanistan having lost more soldiers in the conflict than they have in any since the Korean War. 

Canada is also very active sending special forces along with US special forces in counter narcotic and counter terrorism actions around the globe. They have also been involved in a variety of UN and Nato missions. 

So does that count as "peace"? If it does, then again the prediction is flat out wrong. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

All they needed to know to make the prediction with confidence is that there wasn't any peace during their lifetimes, which anyone capable of writing would have been educated enough to know.

ok, then this prophesy is not something we should waste our time on if that's how easy it is... in fact, it's likely not a prophesy and I'm just mistaking it as one.

Well there we go. Progress! Yes, it isn't a prophecy, it is just bullshit. Moving on.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm not suggesting they deserved it at all. Just pointing out how ridiculous your assertion that everyone god drowned deserved it because at some point in the future they would do something bad.

The Bible makes that assertion, not me;

Gen. 6:5; "Then teh Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously."

And you assert that the bible is correct right? Whether the assertion originated with you or not is irrelevant. You assert that it is true and it is ridiculous whether you came up with it or someone else did. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I know that the story is completely fabricated and never happened. I am going solely on the story you tell me is true, and in that story the main character (god) is a villain. You told me he killed everyone except Noah and his family. I don't need to make any assumptions at all to determine that killing all of humanity is bad. All I have to do is make the determination that humans are good and humans living is better than humans drowning. 

you can do that, but I just quoted a verse contradicting your conclusion.

Which is one of a million reasons to be skeptical that bible verses are an accurate portrayal of reality. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I am not God.  I am not passing judgement on families nor do I have the power to execute consequences on a family, so I would of course do everything in my power to protect a child.  That is my role as a human. 

God allows for us to pay the consequences of our own actions as well as the actions of others.  It is worse for a parent to know that becasue of their actions, their children must suffer. 

Why do you hold god's actions to a different moral standard than another human's actions?

 

caposkia wrote:

You can choose to allow God to guide your heart or choose to guide it yourself... or let evil guide it.

How do I do that? How do I know if my heart is being guided by god or evil? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

He supports stoning and drowning.

We support electricution and lethal injection.  

And as I pointed out a dozen times, humans are immoral. You are claiming that god is perfectly moral. I am not making the claim that humans are perfectly moral. Pointing to the immorality of humans does not justify god being immoral. To support your claim, it wouldn't even be enough for you to show that god is more moral than humans. You have to show he is perfectly moral.  

 

caposkia wrote:

it did make the analogy irrelevent.  I'm glad you can see that.  

God is not the train operator, He is a judge in a court of law.

I saw it immediately which is why I called you on it. You made the analogy irrelevant to evade the central question. And now you go back to your judge analogy which I already shredded both here and the other thread. It is not just for a judge to punish children for the actions of their parents. If he is a judge, he is a terrible one. 

 

caposkia wrote:

So killing everyone would have been the better choice?   I know killing no one.. but again, that goes back to the results of that choice... The Bible states that every thought was evil... how many more people could have suffered as a consequence of an alternative that you're suggesting???  People are still going to be people and still do bad things... I believe it was the most logical choice... I believe more were saved in future generations... I can't back that up just as much as you can't back up that another option would have been better.

Wow, more progress! Exactly, you can't back it up. You simply assume that God is benevolent and good. So let us cast our assumptions aside and look at what we know. Some humans still do some very evil things. Violence, pain, suffering, abuse and all sorts of immoral things happen in the world every single day. We know this as fact. 

Now your hypothesis is that this God character was so upset about all the terrible things humans do he decided to drown all of them. So we are all descended from Noah who is supposed to be the one good person in the world. You further hypothesize that even drowning those who were incapable of doing evil was better than not drowning them because their descendants would do terrible things. 

Now let us assume your hypothesis is true. What would that mean? First of all, God obviously failed miserably if his goal was to eliminate evil from the world. Evil has existed ever since Noah and Noah's descendants have caused a significant amount of pain and suffering. This brings about the obvious question: If killing all the children was good because their descendants would have done evil things, wouldn't killing Noah also have been good because HIS descendants did a lot of evil things?

Given the story, there is good reason to doubt that god is benevolent. There is also reason to doubt this beings supposed motivations. If he wanted to eliminate evil in the world, he could have eliminated it. Since it is not eliminated, he obviously didn't want to eliminate it. (or he is not omnipotent) He must have had another reason for drowning almost all of humanity. As a human who likes to live and is not particularly fond of the idea of drowning, I'm not going to trust that any being who is willing to drown 99.99% of my kind is benevolent towards me. That would be as irrational as a Jew believing Hitler was benevolent towards them.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
caposkia ---


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:unwilling.

caposkia wrote:

unwilling. He had determined that humanity needed to be wiped out and then gave humanity a second chance only through Noah and his family. The other families had sealed their fate.

And God sealed the fate of the children. The children weren't capable of making that decision, and while the parents could be callously depraved enough to do so for them, God still could have spared them. But he was unwilling to do so.


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Did he actually give his word earlier that he was going to destroy all of humanity? If so, where did he say this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't remember that part.

Genesis 6:3; "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty-years."

Genesis 6:13; "Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the Earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the Earth."

Gen. 13 was before Noah even had the plans to build an ark, which gave Noah enough time to mention it if He felt so inclined... also God gave man 120 years... some try to associate that with the lifespan of humans...which seems true today, but there are people mentioned after that was said living much longer than that. I believe it was God stating in that moment that in 120 years this event were to happen. This would have allowed plenty of time for a generation to change its ways and not continue as their parents and ancestors had.

My complaint is that God didn't warn these people. Genesis 6:3 doesn't address to whom God was speaking, and it certainly doesn't say that he was addressing humanity. Genesis 6:13 is God talking to Noah, who was already going to be saved. So, God warns Noah that he's going to kill everyone else, kills them all, and you count this as him intervening.

What I'm talking about is God actually talking to the wicked people saying "shape up or else.". I don't see any evidence of that actually happening. So, when you say "God gave his word", that's not particularly satisfying to me, since he gave his word to the person he was not punishing, and then proceeded to punish other people.


caposkia wrote:
it's not baseless if I have a statement showing God intervening with someone. The base is that throughout scripture, God has attempted to intervene here and there. There is nothing to suggest He hasn't, or that it stopped with Cain.

Are you saying that if you have one example of something happening that you have proof that it always happens? I don't see how this works.


caposkia wrote:
If interventions happened before... and after... how can you simply dismiss that they happened during?

Are you saying that if X happens at one point in time, and X happens later, then we know for a fact that X had to happen in the middle, assuming X is a single action that is not dependent on other actions? So, if I prove to my boss that I came to work on Monday and Friday, that she knows for a fact that I came in Tuesday through Thursday? Sure, she can assume that, but she can't know it (without other evidence).


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

Yes. He wanted children to die. The god you believe in is a monster. You can make the point that one should want to genuflect out of fear, but you cannot make that point out of love.

I don't remember reading that his affliction was against children. Where was that stated?

The part where you earlier said that he was unwilling to precision-strike the adults. If he can punish just the wicked adults and he chooses to also punish the children, then by very definition God chose to punish the children for things they did not do.

Lets say I'm a good shot. I have a pistol and a super-short sawed off shotgun. There are two people standing near each other: a wicked adult and a child. I'm at a close enough range that if I use the pistol, I will hit the adult and not the kid (remember, I'm a good shot, for sake of argument). If I use the shotgun, I hit both. Now, if I have both of these at my hand, and I choose to use the shotgun, I by very definition choose to shoot both the adult and the kid.

It's that simple. It really is.

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:caposkia

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 Considering the direction of some of the discussion in the past on this thread among other threads and considering the possible direction some could go in.  I feel it's important for us to all focus on what to avoid in discussion.  If we're all honest with each other, we have to admit we're all guilty of at least one of these one time or another amidst these difficult discussions.

http://twentytwowords.com/2012/04/23/11-ways-you-are-thoroughly-but-interestingly-wrong/

 

Missed a couple - confirmation bias, belief perseverance, and self justification. Read your own posts and think carefully.

 

I had thought carefully after rereading every post I've posted a few times before I post them and before providing this link.  

If you claim that I self justify I'm on here to understand why you think I'm wrong.  That's not self justification

If you think  I have an unwillingness to accept that my belief system is wrong then you might want to reflect on why that is be it that I'm here hoping that if I am wrong someone will show me how.    I'm more open minded than I'd say 99% of posters on this site are..

If you believe I favor information that confirms my belief, then why do I support other religions as having a valid basis for belief?  E.g. Muslims believe in the same God Christians and Jews do... Most other religions around the world follow a god that likely has metaphysical characteristics... 

It's interesting you say that because I've found non-believers to fall under those categories you post more often than believers... at least in my experience.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:cj

Jabberwocky wrote:

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 Considering the direction of some of the discussion in the past on this thread among other threads and considering the possible direction some could go in.  I feel it's important for us to all focus on what to avoid in discussion.  If we're all honest with each other, we have to admit we're all guilty of at least one of these one time or another amidst these difficult discussions.

http://twentytwowords.com/2012/04/23/11-ways-you-are-thoroughly-but-interestingly-wrong/

 

Missed a couple - confirmation bias, belief perseverance, and self justification. Read your own posts and think carefully.

 

Yep! I didn't see special pleading in that list either, but it should be brought up as well. 

I agree, I see that a lot on this site


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Where are you getting your data from on this?  I don't think people were as spread out as you're suggesting here.  If my guess is right and the flood occured roughly 150,000 years ago, or even 125,000 years ago, the population would still not have spread much beyond Africa or maybe at most the Arabian boarders.  It is suggested by the link I added below that at about 75000 years ago people had spread as far as Malaysia but no evidence of further migration before that... and that could have just happened, we don't know... so at even 125000 years we can assume at most they migrated half that distance.  the populations were also not that big.  it is said in the link that at about 150000 years ago the people who everyone's DNA in the world can be linked to were numbered at about 10,000.  They all still lived in that region of africa at that time.  That wouldn't be impossible to cover in the alleged 120 years God gave man if Gen 6:3 is talking about the coming of the flood.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/662

 

There are these nifty things called scientific journals where scientists discuss their recent finds. While I am hardly an expert on archaeology, I do pay attention to the more significant finds. Human ancestors were using axes in Spain 800,000 years ago. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/full/nature08214.html

We also know that at that time they were traveling the African-Near East corridor because Acheulean tools that we believe originated in Africa have been found in various locations. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5481/944

A subspecies of Homo Erectus has been found in Indonesia and is dated 1.6-1.8 million years ago and some argue that it was the first human ancestors to build rafts. (Although it should be noted that most now agree that this subspecies died out and is not a direct ancestor of modern humans.) 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5772/361

There is significant evidence that Neanderthals were widespread throughout Europe and more recent evidence suggests their territory expanded all the way to Siberia. Neanderthals are direct ancestors of ours which interbred with the anatomically modern humans coming out of Africa and eventually being replaced sometime around 30,000 BC. 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12711-neanderthals-roamed-as-far-as-siberia.html#.UgzaK9KR_7A

You can make "assumptions" (read ignore reality) all you want. There is significant evidence that the ancestors of humans were spread throughout the entire landmass millions of years before you are suggesting the flood happened. So are you now going to suggest that the flood happened 2 million years ago?

After looking into your links and cross referencing with other links... it seems a few of the oldest axes have been found in Malaysia upwards of 2 million years ago.  They've also found the remains of a human body they've dated back to 1.5 million years ago... not in malaysia.  Considering that evidence... and also that the article I linked is dated in 2010 and all those other articles are dated later that I've found... it seems that information has modified in the past few years.  

Considering the evidence you've brought to my attention and that we're really taking an educated guess as to when the flood actually happened based on evidences like these, yes I would have to say that the flood happened much earlier than I originally assumed here.  It's interesting though because you state that as if it's a bad thing for me to learn from new information and change my understanding based on that... why?  Most people would be thrilled to have proven me wrong... you just did.  I understand the sources I was using were a bit out of date.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well define "peace". Are we at peace in the US right now? Kind of. The vast majority of Americans don't experience any discomfort due to our current military actions. Most people don't think about it and it doesn't even rate making the front page of the newspaper on most days. So is anytime a nation has military conflict with another count as not being at peace? And for how long? Even in the middle of an active war there can be months at a time where no one on either side dies in conflict. This was even more true in history where many of the "wars" were really a series of military conflicts that could be separated by decades where the armies never clashed. 

The thing with God is there is no "kind of".  Either it is or it isn't.  You can't kind of go to war, kind of kill your neighbor, kind of lie to better yourself etc.  Either you did or you didn't.  Peace is the same thing.. Either your nation is at peace or it's not.  

I would consider our nation at peace when ever single member of the army, navy, air force, marines, etc are at home with their families not serving for any reason.  That would be our nation at peace.  It does seem that we still have thousands of citizens over seas serving for our country.  That could understand to be in exception of those who need to man embassies.  

The peace mentioned in scripture could be taken to mean that though we always strive for peace, it will never happen until the return.  I see what you're trying to get at and what it comes down to is it would take God's return to bring peace to Israel... maybe now adays we could say that about the world.  Israel was what the scripture was written for at the time so Israel is what is being focused on.  

Am I changing the goal posts here??? no, just reflecting on what peace likely means.  Be it that most people have a vision that peace is within our grasp, it is pretty far fetched for someone to say that peace will never happen for a nation.  That could be grounds for a hanging in some centuries.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

An Australian soldier just died in combat a little over a month ago. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-23/australian-soldier-killed-in-afghanistan/4774126 

So if that counts as "peace" then the Jewish people have been at peace thousands of times and the prediction is flat out wrong. 

Canada has also been active in Afghanistan having lost more soldiers in the conflict than they have in any since the Korean War. 

Canada is also very active sending special forces along with US special forces in counter narcotic and counter terrorism actions around the globe. They have also been involved in a variety of UN and Nato missions. 

So does that count as "peace"? If it does, then again the prediction is flat out wrong. 

Then maybe you were right!  I was wrong to say they weren't... again I had said I didn't do the research... i didn't realize they were involved in any of that.   Sounds like none of us are at peace and may never be.  The Bible states though that there's a time for war and a time for peace... so how would an ancient human have such insight on something like this?  Their more likely conclusion would be eventual peace wouldn't it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well there we go. Progress! Yes, it isn't a prophecy, it is just bullshit. Moving on.

so everything that's not a prophesy is bullshit.... got it... I'm assuming that would go for pretty much everything you've been telling me... execpt for your prediction from the last post right?

How about it's still legitimate regardless whether it's prophesy or not... because it looks like they weren't wrong and that it likely would take the return of God to bring the nation to a state of peace.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And you assert that the bible is correct right? Whether the assertion originated with you or not is irrelevant. You assert that it is true and it is ridiculous whether you came up with it or someone else did. 

I understand that the Bible is correct, but not based on the flood...

You assert that I'm making assertions when all this does is open a case for special pleading... o!  here we go... they're coming out again!!!

Beyond Saving wrote:

I know that the story is completely fabricated and never happened. I am going solely on the story you tell me is true, and in that story the main character (god) is a villain. You told me he killed everyone except Noah and his family. I don't need to make any assumptions at all to determine that killing all of humanity is bad. All I have to do is make the determination that humans are good and humans living is better than humans drowning. 

you can do that, but I just quoted a verse contradicting your conclusion.

Which is one of a million reasons to be skeptical that bible verses are an accurate portrayal of reality. 

How is a statement about humanity during a time that we have likely 0 information on to contradict the claim a reason to be skeptical?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why do you hold god's actions to a different moral standard than another human's actions?

God is Almighty!  Maker of all, He is judge jury and executioner. He is above all.... that's why.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

How do I do that? How do I know if my heart is being guided by god or evil? 

That's a tough question... You ultimately make the choice... the choice is a lot of work, not just a quick decision.  It requires constant reflection and prayer as well as accountability.  Usually if you don't see it when it's happening, you can see it in hindsite when you reflect on it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And as I pointed out a dozen times, humans are immoral. You are claiming that god is perfectly moral. I am not making the claim that humans are perfectly moral. Pointing to the immorality of humans does not justify god being immoral. To support your claim, it wouldn't even be enough for you to show that god is more moral than humans. You have to show he is perfectly moral.  

If God is perfectly moral, then God has to do the right thing.  Being a big fuzzy wuzzy in the sky that you can just jump on the lap of and hug isn't being perfectly moral and doing the right thing.  To be perfectly moral He would also need to judge our actions appropriately and give us what we deserve for what we've done good or bad.  

I agree with you that humans are immoral, but we're immoral by our own actions and choice.  Also, how can immoral humanity be good as you're claiming about the people in the flood?  You seem to be shifting goal posts now.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I saw it immediately which is why I called you on it. You made the analogy irrelevant to evade the central question. And now you go back to your judge analogy which I already shredded both here and the other thread. It is not just for a judge to punish children for the actions of their parents. If he is a judge, he is a terrible one. 

special pleading are we?

Ok, Again, the judge passed judgement on the parents.  The parents are responsible for the children.  

Lemme ask you this,  When a judge sends a single parent to jail... and the child is ultimately sent into "the system"  who's fault is it that the child is orphaned?  Children in the system btw tend to have many issues in life and typically end up in jail at least once in their life... is the judge still at fault here?  Oh, also many children die in the system due to neglect or other issues by the service.  I would likely blame people not doing their job in the system, but who is ultimately at fault for the child being in that situation in the first place?  

According to you it's the judge.  I don't agree.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wow, more progress! Exactly, you can't back it up. You simply assume that God is benevolent and good. So let us cast our assumptions aside and look at what we know. Some humans still do some very evil things. Violence, pain, suffering, abuse and all sorts of immoral things happen in the world every single day. We know this as fact. 

wait... I've been asking us to do this for a long time.. this is what it took for you to be on board with the facts??? ok.. moving on

Beyond Saving wrote:

Now your hypothesis is that this God character was so upset about all the terrible things humans do he decided to drown all of them. So we are all descended from Noah who is supposed to be the one good person in the world. You further hypothesize that even drowning those who were incapable of doing evil was better than not drowning them because their descendants would do terrible things. 

Now let us assume your hypothesis is true. What would that mean? First of all, God obviously failed miserably if his goal was to eliminate evil from the world. Evil has existed ever since Noah and Noah's descendants have caused a significant amount of pain and suffering. This brings about the obvious question: If killing all the children was good because their descendants would have done evil things, wouldn't killing Noah also have been good because HIS descendants did a lot of evil things?

God wanted to destroy all of humanity.  I've lost count on how many times I've said this.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Given the story, there is good reason to doubt that god is benevolent. There is also reason to doubt this beings supposed motivations. If he wanted to eliminate evil in the world, he could have eliminated it. Since it is not eliminated, he obviously didn't want to eliminate it. (or he is not omnipotent) He must have had another reason for drowning almost all of humanity. As a human who likes to live and is not particularly fond of the idea of drowning, I'm not going to trust that any being who is willing to drown 99.99% of my kind is benevolent towards me. That would be as irrational as a Jew believing Hitler was benevolent towards them.  

 

1.  They were not followers of God, Noah was.  Jews were not followers of Hitler.  I sense that you'll try to claim that I'm justifying Hitlers actions... Hitler was not God and had no authority to do what He did, especially to God's elite.  

2.  Gods goal with the flood was not to eliminate evil, it was to eliminate humanity.  He instead had hope for humanity and decided to start again with Noah.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:eh... I would have

cj wrote:

eh... I would have kept the fire spewing roaches.  How cool would they be as pets!


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:And God

RobbyPants wrote:

And God sealed the fate of the children. The children weren't capable of making that decision, and while the parents could be callously depraved enough to do so for them, God still could have spared them. But he was unwilling to do so.

you're right, God wanted to destroy humanity... killing children would be necessary to destroy humanity.  

RobbyPants wrote:


My complaint is that God didn't warn these people. Genesis 6:3 doesn't address to whom God was speaking, and it certainly doesn't say that he was addressing humanity. Genesis 6:13 is God talking to Noah, who was already going to be saved. So, God warns Noah that he's going to kill everyone else, kills them all, and you count this as him intervening.

Who was God talking to if not the people then when mentioning 120 years?  

RobbyPants wrote:


What I'm talking about is God actually talking to the wicked people saying "shape up or else.". I don't see any evidence of that actually happening. So, when you say "God gave his word", that's not particularly satisfying to me, since he gave his word to the person he was not punishing, and then proceeded to punish other people.

How is "you have 120 years" not the same as "shape up or else"??

RobbyPants wrote:



caposkia wrote:
it's not baseless if I have a statement showing God intervening with someone. The base is that throughout scripture, God has attempted to intervene here and there. There is nothing to suggest He hasn't, or that it stopped with Cain.

Are you saying that if you have one example of something happening that you have proof that it always happens? I don't see how this works.

I'm saying that Cain is one of many examples throughout scripture... did you read what I wrote?  

RobbyPants wrote:


Are you saying that if X happens at one point in time, and X happens later, then we know for a fact that X had to happen in the middle, assuming X is a single action that is not dependent on other actions? So, if I prove to my boss that I came to work on Monday and Friday, that she knows for a fact that I came in Tuesday through Thursday? Sure, she can assume that, but she can't know it (without other evidence).

i'm saying that if X happens at one point in time, and X happens over many occurences or other points of times, it's logical to deduce that X happened in the middle as well.  Considering your analogy, if you've always been a reliable worker in years past, and throughout the year you've been faithful and showing up to work on time and appropriate days, it woudl be illogical for your boss to conclude without evidence that one week out of that year you decided to show up just on monday and just on friday without telling them.  

RobbyPants wrote:


The part where you earlier said that he was unwilling to precision-strike the adults. If he can punish just the wicked adults and he chooses to also punish the children, then by very definition God chose to punish the children for things they did not do.

Lets say I'm a good shot. I have a pistol and a super-short sawed off shotgun. There are two people standing near each other: a wicked adult and a child. I'm at a close enough range that if I use the pistol, I will hit the adult and not the kid (remember, I'm a good shot, for sake of argument). If I use the shotgun, I hit both. Now, if I have both of these at my hand, and I choose to use the shotgun, I by very definition choose to shoot both the adult and the kid.

It's that simple. It really is.

right... ok, let's put it this way.  You've decided prior to the event that you're going to use c4 to blow up the adults house.  You've given the adult warning that if they don't straiten out that you are going to do this at this general timeframe.  You set up the charge and the timer.  The adult, full knowing the consequence coming to them have their children inside... What then?  Are you suggesting that you're at fault for killing the children in this case?    This is more in line with a flood scenario than picking up a gun and shooting one over another.  

If you splash water on one person from a bucket, what is the liklihood that someone standing next to them is going to get wet?  

I understand the flood story to be that God set up a series of events to take place.. and that it was really to destroy all of humanity.  Simple and strait.  and it worked.  Your c4 plan was to make sure that the adult had no way of surviving the ordeal.  Considering that the adult never got on your bad side and caused you to consider such drastic actions, would their children still be alive?  most likely.  HOw is it not the adults fault here?

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The only fault is yours Caposkia (don't forget it)!!

 ↑

Re :: The only fault is yours Caposkia (double meaning):

 Misc search results, ran across while looking up sacred texts (for Jimenejz)

See:: Image(s) --



 




   No you don't understand the flood story (period)!! And after this, I dont feel I must enlighten you on anything!!





 

Teralek wrote:
 
[On NDE's] ..to some postulations made by scientists one scientific magazines (eg. "Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences" )

 


  The NDE clearinghouse website has identified another description and/or concept of a hell-state. Descriptions consistently are mainly a type of sensory deprivation, with an endless thickly shrouded 'veil' in a light gray colorless mist. ALL according to actual NDE survivors. I should say sounds disconcerting and scarily frightening, no stimuli; almost worse than a literal samsara (,perhaps). I thought veils were associated w/ and supposed to be of happier times? Whatever the case, Not considered the lowest realm of accounts of actual NDErs,. Noteworthy, this hellish-state has been completely missed by authors of popular works on the subject, (thought I'd share).

   It seems unlikely the necessary Positron emission tomography (PET) scans in/as neuroimaging wing, would be allowed in an emergency room setting or a similar ER area. Becoming extremely difficult to quantify. The most plausible explanation doesnt lend itself readily to Transcendence. Because of both  the  inconsistencies & discrepancies   of testimonies given from true NDE cases. It begs the question, why the glaring discrepancies from one individual to another ?


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
 caposkia wrote:you're


 

caposkia wrote:

you're right, God wanted to destroy humanity... killing children would be necessary to destroy humanity.

This was my point three pages ago. It looks like we agree on this point.


caposkia wrote:
Who was God talking to if not the people then when mentioning 120 years?

I don't know, and the Bible sure isn't saying. Noah? The angels? All people? No clue.


caposkia wrote:
How is "you have 120 years" not the same as "shape up or else"??

How is it the same? I seriously don't see that on several re-reads.


caposkia wrote:
I'm saying that Cain is one of many examples throughout scripture... did you read what I wrote?

Which other examples are there? I'm asking for those. You have so far given me a single example of Cain (Monday), and are trying to conivince me that 120 years thing is the Tuesday through Thursday. I'm not seeing it.


caposkia wrote:
i'm saying that if X happens at one point in time, and X happens over many occurences or other points of times, it's logical to deduce that X happened in the middle as well. Considering your analogy, if you've always been a reliable worker in years past, and throughout the year you've been faithful and showing up to work on time and appropriate days, it woudl be illogical for your boss to conclude without evidence that one week out of that year you decided to show up just on monday and just on friday without telling them.

This assumes God has demonstrated being a good worker. I've asked you for examples of this.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

The part where you earlier said that he was unwilling to precision-strike the adults. If he can punish just the wicked adults and he chooses to also punish the children, then by very definition God chose to punish the children for things they did not do.

Lets say I'm a good shot. I have a pistol and a super-short sawed off shotgun. There are two people standing near each other: a wicked adult and a child. I'm at a close enough range that if I use the pistol, I will hit the adult and not the kid (remember, I'm a good shot, for sake of argument). If I use the shotgun, I hit both. Now, if I have both of these at my hand, and I choose to use the shotgun, I by very definition choose to shoot both the adult and the kid.

It's that simple. It really is.

right... ok, let's put it this way. You've decided prior to the event that you're going to use c4 to blow up the adults house. You've given the adult warning that if they don't straiten out that you are going to do this at this general timeframe. You set up the charge and the timer. The adult, full knowing the consequence coming to them have their children inside... What then? Are you suggesting that you're at fault for killing the children in this case? This is more in line with a flood scenario than picking up a gun and shooting one over another.

I'm suggesting that you have C4 and a sniper rifle. STOP IGNORING THE SNIPER RIFLE! He has both. He has clearly demonstrated the ability to precision strike many people at the same time (10th plague). Stop putting imaginary limitations on your God. You already said it in your first response in this post: "you're right, God wanted to destroy humanity... killing children would be necessary to destroy humanity."

You admit he wanted to kill all the children, then you defend his doing so by saying he couldn't have done anything about it. You're not being consitant in your argument.


 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I had thought

caposkia wrote:

I had thought carefully after rereading every post I've posted a few times before I post them and before providing this link.  

If you claim that I self justify I'm on here to understand why you think I'm wrong.  That's not self justification

If you think  I have an unwillingness to accept that my belief system is wrong then you might want to reflect on why that is be it that I'm here hoping that if I am wrong someone will show me how.    I'm more open minded than I'd say 99% of posters on this site are..

If you believe I favor information that confirms my belief, then why do I support other religions as having a valid basis for belief?  E.g. Muslims believe in the same God Christians and Jews do... Most other religions around the world follow a god that likely has metaphysical characteristics... 

It's interesting you say that because I've found non-believers to fall under those categories you post more often than believers... at least in my experience.  

 

Every post you make that justifies god killing infants, children, and the unborn is a self-justification. Because you see yourself as a good person, therefore your god MUST also be good. Any disconfirming evidence, such as the murder of innocents, is explained away to justify your own self-worth.

I am not saying nonbelievers do not also self-justify, fall into confirmation bias, or belief perseverance. Those of us  who make an attempt to be rational have a tendency, however, to back off and reexamine our beliefs when called out on it. It is very difficult to keep tabs on yourself and watch out for these normal human tendencies. And it is sometimes okay to continue in one's belief perseverance, confirmation bias, and self-justification as long as one's opinions and beliefs are based on facts.

Fact 1: The bible says god drowned innocent children.

Fact 2: The bible says he did it deliberately without remorse.

Fact 3: The bible says children - who are incapable of having free will - are liable for the sins of their mothers and fathers. (Subfact: Children - under the age of about 10 - have no ability to form opinions that are not the mirror of their parents'. Children - under the age of about 10 even in biblical times - did not have the capacity to care for themselves.)

Fact 4: You keep saying this is okay.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:After looking

caposkia wrote:

After looking into your links and cross referencing with other links... it seems a few of the oldest axes have been found in Malaysia upwards of 2 million years ago.  They've also found the remains of a human body they've dated back to 1.5 million years ago... not in malaysia.  Considering that evidence... and also that the article I linked is dated in 2010 and all those other articles are dated later that I've found... it seems that information has modified in the past few years.  

Considering the evidence you've brought to my attention and that we're really taking an educated guess as to when the flood actually happened based on evidences like these, yes I would have to say that the flood happened much earlier than I originally assumed here.  It's interesting though because you state that as if it's a bad thing for me to learn from new information and change my understanding based on that... why?  Most people would be thrilled to have proven me wrong... you just did.  I understand the sources I was using were a bit out of date.

Fair enough. Can you see how the story of Noah happening millions of years ago makes the story even more unbelievable than it already is? It introduces dozens of questions which cast doubt upon the story. For example, Noah plants a vineyard and gets drunk on wine. Wine making wasn't figured out until 7,000 BC in Georgia. Grape vines weren't domesticated until sometime around 4,000-3,000 BC. Noah's direct descendants built houses out of brick. Humans didn't start building houses out of brick until after the discovery of agriculture (20,000-10,000 BC) because staying in one location a long time requires farming. It isn't at all obvious that plants grow from seeds, early humans didn't know this and so didn't plant seeds.

Cattle and domesticated fowl didn't exist back then either, people didn't domesticate animals until 10,000 BC. Some argue that the dog was domesticated much earlier around 40.000-30,000 BC. it makes sense that dogs might have been somewhat domesticated by hunter gatherer societies because they would benefit from following the hunters and eating the scraps of kills. Domesticating farm animals is somewhat different since they have no reason to follow humans and have to be herded or contained, which is simply impractical for a population that is moving regularly. 

This is all before you even get to the idea of Noah being able to build a three deck boat that could survive at sea.

What happened to all this technology? Did Noah's family fail to teach the kids how to do all this stuff? That would be odd considering each generation supposedly lived for hundreds of years. It simply doesn't make sense and there isn't a shred of evidence that any of these technologies existed millions of years ago. So did humans somehow lose all this technology and it was rediscovered later? And why isn't there any evidence whatsoever of this technology?

The technology is perfectly consistent with the technology that existed when the story was written, it is not consistent with technology that existed significantly earlier. Of course, the writers had no reason to believe that agriculture, wine and ships didn't always exist because for everyone alive on the planet they did always exist and the stories of how they were discovered were long forgotten. With our knowledge of archaeology and history the story doesn't pass the smell test.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

The thing with God is there is no "kind of".  Either it is or it isn't.  You can't kind of go to war, kind of kill your neighbor, kind of lie to better yourself etc.  Either you did or you didn't.  Peace is the same thing.. Either your nation is at peace or it's not.  

I would consider our nation at peace when ever single member of the army, navy, air force, marines, etc are at home with their families not serving for any reason.  That would be our nation at peace.  It does seem that we still have thousands of citizens over seas serving for our country.  That could understand to be in exception of those who need to man embassies.  

The peace mentioned in scripture could be taken to mean that though we always strive for peace, it will never happen until the return.  I see what you're trying to get at and what it comes down to is it would take God's return to bring peace to Israel... maybe now adays we could say that about the world.  Israel was what the scripture was written for at the time so Israel is what is being focused on.  

Am I changing the goal posts here??? no, just reflecting on what peace likely means.  Be it that most people have a vision that peace is within our grasp, it is pretty far fetched for someone to say that peace will never happen for a nation.  That could be grounds for a hanging in some centuries.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

An Australian soldier just died in combat a little over a month ago. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-23/australian-soldier-killed-in-afghanistan/4774126 

So if that counts as "peace" then the Jewish people have been at peace thousands of times and the prediction is flat out wrong. 

Canada has also been active in Afghanistan having lost more soldiers in the conflict than they have in any since the Korean War. 

Canada is also very active sending special forces along with US special forces in counter narcotic and counter terrorism actions around the globe. They have also been involved in a variety of UN and Nato missions. 

So does that count as "peace"? If it does, then again the prediction is flat out wrong. 

Then maybe you were right!  I was wrong to say they weren't... again I had said I didn't do the research... i didn't realize they were involved in any of that.   Sounds like none of us are at peace and may never be.  The Bible states though that there's a time for war and a time for peace... so how would an ancient human have such insight on something like this?  Their more likely conclusion would be eventual peace wouldn't it?

Ok, so every people on the face of the planet has been at war every day using that definition. Makes the first part of the prediction not so impressive. I don't see why ancient humans would have thought eventual peace would be a likely conclusion. They existed in conflict every single day of their lives, when something happens every single day you assume it will happen tomorrow. It makes sense then that they would see the only possible way to achieve peace is for something powerful to intervene, like god. When God comes down here and puts the whole world at peace you can point to the prophecy and say "Aha! See it was prophetic and we were right." Until then, there is nothing to indicate that the prophecy is at all accurate. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well there we go. Progress! Yes, it isn't a prophecy, it is just bullshit. Moving on.

so everything that's not a prophesy is bullshit.... got it... I'm assuming that would go for pretty much everything you've been telling me... execpt for your prediction from the last post right?

How about it's still legitimate regardless whether it's prophesy or not... because it looks like they weren't wrong and that it likely would take the return of God to bring the nation to a state of peace.

Everything I say is bullshit, have you noticed the initials of my name? Don't believe any of it until you have verified evidence Smiling

 

caposkia wrote:

Which is one of a million reasons to be skeptical that bible verses are an accurate portrayal of reality. 

How is a statement about humanity during a time that we have likely 0 information on to contradict the claim a reason to be skeptical?

[/quote[

We don't have 0 information, we have rather significant amounts of archaelogical evidence that gives us significant clues as to how humans lived and it isn't consistent with the accounts in the bible. That is why there is a lot of reasons to be skeptical.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why do you hold god's actions to a different moral standard than another human's actions?

God is Almighty!  Maker of all, He is judge jury and executioner. He is above all.... that's why.  

Having the power to perform actions doesn't make it moral to do them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

How do I do that? How do I know if my heart is being guided by god or evil? 

That's a tough question... You ultimately make the choice... the choice is a lot of work, not just a quick decision.  It requires constant reflection and prayer as well as accountability.  Usually if you don't see it when it's happening, you can see it in hindsite when you reflect on it.

I reflect on things all the time and the moral conclusions I come to are in some ways drastically different than those that people tell me God has. If he wrote it on my heart, why does my heart tell me the opposite?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

And as I pointed out a dozen times, humans are immoral. You are claiming that god is perfectly moral. I am not making the claim that humans are perfectly moral. Pointing to the immorality of humans does not justify god being immoral. To support your claim, it wouldn't even be enough for you to show that god is more moral than humans. You have to show he is perfectly moral.  

If God is perfectly moral, then God has to do the right thing.  Being a big fuzzy wuzzy in the sky that you can just jump on the lap of and hug isn't being perfectly moral and doing the right thing.  To be perfectly moral He would also need to judge our actions appropriately and give us what we deserve for what we've done good or bad.  

He would also have to judge and punish perfectly. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I agree with you that humans are immoral, but we're immoral by our own actions and choice.  Also, how can immoral humanity be good as you're claiming about the people in the flood?  You seem to be shifting goal posts now.

I don't think every act of immorality makes a person bad. Good people can do immoral things because people are not perfect. We make mistakes. God designed us, he should have known we weren't perfect, so it shouldn't have been a surprise. It is ridiculous to demand perfection from something you knowingly created to be imperfect.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I saw it immediately which is why I called you on it. You made the analogy irrelevant to evade the central question. And now you go back to your judge analogy which I already shredded both here and the other thread. It is not just for a judge to punish children for the actions of their parents. If he is a judge, he is a terrible one. 

special pleading are we?

Ok, Again, the judge passed judgement on the parents.  The parents are responsible for the children.  

Lemme ask you this,  When a judge sends a single parent to jail... and the child is ultimately sent into "the system"  who's fault is it that the child is orphaned?  Children in the system btw tend to have many issues in life and typically end up in jail at least once in their life... is the judge still at fault here?  Oh, also many children die in the system due to neglect or other issues by the service.  I would likely blame people not doing their job in the system, but who is ultimately at fault for the child being in that situation in the first place?  

According to you it's the judge.  I don't agree.

It is the system and those of us who created it and have the power to change it. Which includes me, you, the judge, everyone. Again, you are pointing at human imperfections and using that to justify God's imperfections. Humans are not perfect, our systems are not perfect, our justice is not perfect. If we could improve the system so that 100% of the children get raised in quality families we should do so. The goal of the system is to provide kids good lives, it fails because we are human and not perfect, but we try. Why do we try? Because we believe that children shouldn't be punished simply because they were unlucky enough to have bad parents. You claim God is perfect, he had the power to protect those children from punishment perfectly, he didn't.  

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Given the story, there is good reason to doubt that god is benevolent. There is also reason to doubt this beings supposed motivations. If he wanted to eliminate evil in the world, he could have eliminated it. Since it is not eliminated, he obviously didn't want to eliminate it. (or he is not omnipotent) He must have had another reason for drowning almost all of humanity. As a human who likes to live and is not particularly fond of the idea of drowning, I'm not going to trust that any being who is willing to drown 99.99% of my kind is benevolent towards me. That would be as irrational as a Jew believing Hitler was benevolent towards them.  

1.  They were not followers of God, Noah was.  Jews were not followers of Hitler.  I sense that you'll try to claim that I'm justifying Hitlers actions... Hitler was not God and had no authority to do what He did, especially to God's elite.  

2.  Gods goal with the flood was not to eliminate evil, it was to eliminate humanity.  He instead had hope for humanity and decided to start again with Noah.  

1. So if Hitler were God he would have had the authority? 

2. Obviously his hopes failed and eliminating humanity didn't change anything, the descendants of Noah aren't all that different from what humans are said to have been before. So God went through a completely pointless exercise and caused a lot of pain and suffering for no apparent reason. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It says in the word itself. Omni means all, and scient means knowing. If you claim not to know everything that will happen, then you don't know everything, even if it doesn't exist yet. I know (within a miniscule margin of error, but I'd be willing to bet every dollar I own to anyone that takes me up on it) that in 24 hours, someone on this planet will be asleep. At least one person at any given time on this planet, is asleep. Can god know that? If so, is it because he can deduce it like us mere mortals? Or is it because of his omniscience? If it's the latter, then where is the limit on it?

Also, if he can determine certain futures, but not all, the question is the same as above. What is the limit on his omniscience?

omniscience is a man made term.  All knowing is quite vague.  It implies "everything there is to know"  which raises the question, is the future available to know.  Some say yes, some say no.  can we empirically determine that the future applies to omniscience?  no, not that I'm aware of.  However, omniscience can also mean all knowing in the sense that you are so aware of everything that is and was that you can logically deduce a pretty clear path of what the future will hold considering every aspect of creation. Like your knowledge of the fact that somewhere in the world at all times there has to be at least 1 person sleeping... I can deduce from my knowledge that there must be at least 1000 people sleeping because of what I am aware of.  This is one angle we can take on God.  

You don't have to empirically prove that omniscience includes knowledge of the future. It's simply the definition of the word. Stop trying to muddy up the waters. 

caposkia wrote:

the other is considering the scientific understanding of "time".  Einstein concluded that we are moving through time, not the other way around and that if we were able to reach a specific speed, time would slow down or even stop.  If this is true, we can picture time as maybe a circle, where everything on the outside of the circle is moving through time at a specific pace.  Picture a being in the center of the circle.  Time would logically not progress in the center and a being in the center would be able to observe all time, past present and future without having to reap the consequences of progressing time.  That being may also be able to jump into any part of the timeline/circle and manipulate it to change future events.  

Confusingly written and unimportant, but here's a question: Can your god jump into the middle of this circle? If, not, he's not omniscient.

caposkia wrote:

the thing with the second perspective is then you must accept predestination... which means that though we think we are free, we really are robots stuck on a set path oblivious to the choices we make being puppeted by an external source.  

I could accept that everything was planned in such a case, but it doesn't mean I'm not making my own decisions. It just means that someone knows exactly what I'm going to do. If someone sets your house on fire while you're awake, they didn't manipulate your brain into getting you outside, they simply did something that would entice the majority of humans to get out of their house. It was still the person's choice to run. 

caposkia wrote:

I adhere moreso to the first understanding that God knows creation so well that he can deduce a pretty clear timeline.  He also does have the ability to mainpulate the timeline to ultimately work out in His favor.  With that said, He could go to the degree where He predetermines all of our actions and futures, or He could allow us to make choices and only manipulate the timeline to allow what He says will come to pass happen.  I believe He allows us to make choices for ourselves.  I could be wrong!  But that then does raise up a lot of questions.  

Question 1: Where in the bible does it describe this? If the answer is "none" then you're just making things up here.

caposkia wrote:

With the first understanding, assume you ask a 2 year old if there's someone sleeping in the world right now... they likely would answer no, why?  because as far as they're concerned, everyone is awake because it's day time, they aren't aware yet that when it's daytime here, it's night time somewhere else.  When it comes to understanding the omniscience of God, i believe it is logical to conclude that we are comparably as knowledgeable about the vast knowledge of God and what there is to know about our universe and why things are as a 2 year old is to whether people are sleeping somewhere in the world in the middle of our daytime.  We can ultimately determine that God made a bad choice in situation X, but that'd be like a 2 year old determining that you were wrong about people sleeping.  They just don't know enough to determine that.

So basically what you're saying is that reading the bible, and reading of the countless atrocities either committed or approved by god, are actually good deeds because our knowledge is vastly inferior to god. The obvious question is; how have you, using your own brain, decided that it's a good idea to cede authority to this god? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

If you know everything (absolutely everything) about the now, you also know what comes next. I know if I drain the oil out of my car, and drive it without, the engine will seize up given enough time. However, if I had full 100% knowledge of the state of every molecule and exactly how much friction is generated by this problem, I would be able to say exactly how long it would take. If god doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow, then he is lacking in knowledge of my brain chemistry right now. So now, he doesn't know the future, or fully know the present. Either that, or he knows the present, but his own computing power isn't enough to deduce the future from it (which would hit him right in the omnipotence). His full knowledge of the past and present also requires him to be able to know the future as well if he is all powerful. You seem to have a big problem understanding the concept of "all". 

 

If He has to determine what you will do tomorrow, I bet He'd have a pretty good idea.  I believe He would also be able to tell you pretty much every step you'd take... however, He also knows of every other choice you could make in any situation.  You being a free thinking person, any one element of change could allow you to make a different choice, which then could change the whole futuristic timeline that was originally determined.  consider how many choices an average person makes in a day... no one really knows for sure, but the general consensus is thousands.  It is said that a person daily makes over 300 different choices that can determine their weight... this being in reference to whether they end up overweight, underweight or just right for their body type.  One of those 300 choices by itself does not make someone fat, but compiled day after day after day has made people obese.  You can apply this logic to anything in a day.  You can make good choices and the compilation will likely have good results, you can make bad choices and the compilation will likely end up negative in some way... but one bad choice does not determine typically what your future will hold unless it was a big choice.  Out of those 1000's of choices, God likely knows the general path I'm sure, but over time, small deviations can lead to big changes far down the line.  

So what you're saying in essence is, every time I make a conscious decision, I can further confuse god? Or at least hinder his ability as to what I'll do next? Seriously, that is some weak level of omniscience. 

caposkia wrote:

Those of us who ask God for guidance give our lives to God, in turn I believe that allows God to modify some of my choices for me.  I am willingly allowing God to do that for me.  This allows my futuristic path to be more directly in line with where God wants me.  I do believe however, those who don't want God to 'modify their choices' have no guidance and can have quite aimless futures.  They may not think so, but it could likely end up far off from where God wants them.  

My life isn't aimless. But thanks for assuming that because I don't subscribe to your particular flavour of woo, that my future is aimless. 

caposkia wrote:

This is getting quite long, but you must understand that it's not as easy as you're trying to make it out to be.  We don't know for sure how God determines the future, but calling Him omniscient and having that supported by scripture does not determine that the future is written out for all of us... some would disagree with me, but talking about evidence and not assumptions here, there's nothing that clearly states that predestination is a reality.  At least not in the Bible

No, but the fact remains that omniscience means all knowing. Being unable to predict the future is a limit of one's knowledge. Having full knowledge of EVERYTHING in the present (and the physics behind it) mean that you know what will happen next anyways, even if you can't "see" the future per-se. God's inability to "see" the future in that way wouldn't matter, as his ability to deduce it from the present shouldn't have any limits on it either. You seem to have suggested up there that every time a person makes a decision, god has to "re-calculate" his GPS of omniscience, if you will. That is simply hilarious. I am going to randomly switch hands when I wash dishes tonight. Boy, will god's face be red when he becomes confused about what I'll do next!

caposkia wrote:

I agree, I see that a lot on this site

Me too, but pretty much exclusively from the theists. I dismiss all mythical writings. You dismiss all but yours. That is special pleading. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Issue .X1 Winter 1983 -- Special Issue, author a Bob Moore . .

 > Issue .X1  Winter 1983 -- Special Issue, author a Bob Moore . .

   (It doesn't get more "On-T0PIC", leave it up) --     :

 See :: Image -

 













For the alternative view SEE : Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (1996), TalkOrigins has a small review of their work online.

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:the other is

caposkia wrote:

the other is considering the scientific understanding of "time".  Einstein concluded that we are moving through time, not the other way around and that if we were able to reach a specific speed, time would slow down or even stop.  If this is true, we can picture time as maybe a circle, where everything on the outside of the circle is moving through time at a specific pace.  Picture a being in the center of the circle.  Time would logically not progress in the center and a being in the center would be able to observe all time, past present and future without having to reap the consequences of progressing time.  That being may also be able to jump into any part of the timeline/circle and manipulate it to change future events.  

the thing with the second perspective is then you must accept predestination... which means that though we think we are free, we really are robots ...

No... This is wrong on many, many levels.  Time is a dimension, the universe gets older in one direction and younger in the opposite direction.  Einstein theorized that time is not independent of space (ironically, as you are suggesting), but it is one thing called space-time.  There is no circle, square or heart shaped time that anyone can be out of, around, or in the center of.  e=mc2 basically means that energy, mass and speed are interconnected.  as your speed increases, your mass increases and it requires more energy to push along.  It is why the general theory of relativity postulates that nothing that has mass can travel faster than the speed of light.  

This sort of vague semantics is used in all theistic arguments.  Nonsense terms such as "immaterial" "out of time" or even "omni-x" have no meaning.  If you can clearly define those terms, then you can use it to prove your god.  Unless we have a definition to work with, you can continue to move the goalposts.  Dr Craig Lane is famous for this sort of nonsense.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
>EDIT :: EDIT Typeos it's CULMINATION and not CULINATION & Yaw:

#227

 

 EDIT :: (EDIT Typeo, the word is CULMINATION and not CULINATION. It's Yaw a vertical axis, not Yam a Northwest Semitic upper deity. Moore seems to be suggesting there would be considerable difficulty in assembling and deploying  a workable ship of such length)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Confirmation bias

No reply to this post. People often do not even see what has been written, hear what has been said, if it goes against their beliefs.

 

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I had thought carefully after rereading every post I've posted a few times before I post them and before providing this link.  

If you claim that I self justify I'm on here to understand why you think I'm wrong.  That's not self justification

If you think  I have an unwillingness to accept that my belief system is wrong then you might want to reflect on why that is be it that I'm here hoping that if I am wrong someone will show me how.    I'm more open minded than I'd say 99% of posters on this site are..

If you believe I favor information that confirms my belief, then why do I support other religions as having a valid basis for belief?  E.g. Muslims believe in the same God Christians and Jews do... Most other religions around the world follow a god that likely has metaphysical characteristics... 

It's interesting you say that because I've found non-believers to fall under those categories you post more often than believers... at least in my experience.  

 

Every post you make that justifies god killing infants, children, and the unborn is a self-justification. Because you see yourself as a good person, therefore your god MUST also be good. Any disconfirming evidence, such as the murder of innocents, is explained away to justify your own self-worth.

I am not saying nonbelievers do not also self-justify, fall into confirmation bias, or belief perseverance. Those of us  who make an attempt to be rational have a tendency, however, to back off and reexamine our beliefs when called out on it. It is very difficult to keep tabs on yourself and watch out for these normal human tendencies. And it is sometimes okay to continue in one's belief perseverance, confirmation bias, and self-justification as long as one's opinions and beliefs are based on facts.

Fact 1: The bible says god drowned innocent children.

Fact 2: The bible says he did it deliberately without remorse.

Fact 3: The bible says children - who are incapable of having free will - are liable for the sins of their mothers and fathers. (Subfact: Children - under the age of about 10 - have no ability to form opinions that are not the mirror of their parents'. Children - under the age of about 10 even in biblical times - did not have the capacity to care for themselves.)

Fact 4: You keep saying this is okay.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:No reply to this

cj wrote:
No reply to this post. People often do not even see what has been written, hear what has been said, if it goes against their beliefs. 

Theists who think too hard and honestly about these things don't keep the status-quo of content religiousness for long, probably because the dissonance between their own morality and the supposed morality of their god are quite detached and noticing this leads people who actually care about the facts inevitably away from intense religiosity and sometimes even to atheism if they are also skeptics.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:caposkia

RobbyPants wrote:


caposkia wrote:
How is "you have 120 years" not the same as "shape up or else"??

How is it the same? I seriously don't see that on several re-reads.

Lemme put it another way.  I'm a parent talking to a child; "you have 5 seconds to do as you're told..."

RobbyPants wrote:



caposkia wrote:
I'm saying that Cain is one of many examples throughout scripture... did you read what I wrote?

Which other examples are there? I'm asking for those. You have so far given me a single example of Cain (Monday), and are trying to conivince me that 120 years thing is the Tuesday through Thursday. I'm not seeing it.

Ok, Moses, read both Kings, Solomon, James, Peter, Thomas... need more?

RobbyPants wrote:


This assumes God has demonstrated being a good worker. I've asked you for examples of this.

good worker is general.  God intervening names are listed above as other examples among many... I'm sure you can go to bible.com and put in those names and find many passages where God intervened with them even many times.

RobbyPants wrote:

I'm suggesting that you have C4 and a sniper rifle. STOP IGNORING THE SNIPER RIFLE! He has both. He has clearly demonstrated the ability to precision strike many people at the same time (10th plague). Stop putting imaginary limitations on your God. You already said it in your first response in this post: "you're right, God wanted to destroy humanity... killing children would be necessary to destroy humanity."

You admit he wanted to kill all the children, then you defend his doing so by saying he couldn't have done anything about it. You're not being consitant in your argument.

Here's the thing though... there's a reason I'm ignoring the sniper rifle.  God has show examples of using our metaphorical sniper rifle... he has also shown many examples of using C4... I don't remember an instance where God used both at once.  It was always an either or.  If there were any innocents in the blast radius, He would tell them to leave with specific instructions. 

In the case of the flood, He used C-4... his plan?  to wipe out humanity (period)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Every post you

cj wrote:

 

Every post you make that justifies god killing infants, children, and the unborn is a self-justification. Because you see yourself as a good person, therefore your god MUST also be good. Any disconfirming evidence, such as the murder of innocents, is explained away to justify your own self-worth.

I am not saying nonbelievers do not also self-justify, fall into confirmation bias, or belief perseverance. Those of us  who make an attempt to be rational have a tendency, however, to back off and reexamine our beliefs when called out on it. It is very difficult to keep tabs on yourself and watch out for these normal human tendencies. And it is sometimes okay to continue in one's belief perseverance, confirmation bias, and self-justification as long as one's opinions and beliefs are based on facts.

Fact 1: The bible says god drowned innocent children.

Fact 2: The bible says he did it deliberately without remorse.

Fact 3: The bible says children - who are incapable of having free will - are liable for the sins of their mothers and fathers. (Subfact: Children - under the age of about 10 - have no ability to form opinions that are not the mirror of their parents'. Children - under the age of about 10 even in biblical times - did not have the capacity to care for themselves.)

Fact 4: You keep saying this is okay.

 

If we're talking about the flood, I dont' remember where it says God drown innocent children.. if it's fact, it can be quoted from scripture or another reliable source.  The Bible has a quote contrary to your claim that He did it without remorse...  Chapter 6 God grieved in His heart.

Fact 3 lies the issue... children under the age of 10 did not have the capacity to care for themselves.  So God kills their evil parents and leaves the hypothetical children alive... then what?  More God magic right?

That would fall into confirmation bias. 

Every post i make justifies the actions of God, why?  Everything we have information on justifies His actions... this story has no evidence that would contradict that.  if you disagree with this statement, then it sounds to me like we need to move onto another story you feel God was unjust in.... preferably a story we actually have more details on.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Fair

Beyond Saving wrote:

Fair enough. Can you see how the story of Noah happening millions of years ago makes the story even more unbelievable than it already is? It introduces dozens of questions which cast doubt upon the story. For example, Noah plants a vineyard and gets drunk on wine. Wine making wasn't figured out until 7,000 BC in Georgia. Grape vines weren't domesticated until sometime around 4,000-3,000 BC. Noah's direct descendants built houses out of brick. Humans didn't start building houses out of brick until after the discovery of agriculture (20,000-10,000 BC) because staying in one location a long time requires farming. It isn't at all obvious that plants grow from seeds, early humans didn't know this and so didn't plant seeds.

I see where the dating can cast doubts on it for you... here's the reasons why it doesn't for me.

First and foremost, we need to understand that this story was written during a time where wine making was known to be happening and thus it is a logical conclusion that if Noah was said to have gotten drunk that it would be from wine.  It is known much further back in history that people would get drunk on other fermented types of fruits and not necessarily by juicing them but many times by letting them ferment as is. 

The writer of the story would typically use information that they had handy at the time to associate with a story they were writing that they may not have been able to witness, especially one that had been told verbally over generations.  In this particular case, there is controversy on the actual author of this story and thus we don't need to go there because it's quite a long discussion.

Building a house out of brick vs stone... both would have the same result... a strong foundation.  Brick was known by the writer, brick was used to describe the material a house was built out of.  This association is not uncommon with many ancient writings where the technology claimed in the story may not match up with the dating.  This has been discussed in depth in the Myths Parables and legends or real thread with PJTS early on... I don't remember what page.  We're doing a historical runthrough... you can check it out.  This likely would have been discussed toward the beginning of the thread

Beyond Saving wrote:

Cattle and domesticated fowl didn't exist back then either, people didn't domesticate animals until 10,000 BC. Some argue that the dog was domesticated much earlier around 40.000-30,000 BC. it makes sense that dogs might have been somewhat domesticated by hunter gatherer societies because they would benefit from following the hunters and eating the scraps of kills. Domesticating farm animals is somewhat different since they have no reason to follow humans and have to be herded or contained, which is simply impractical for a population that is moving regularly. 

This is all before you even get to the idea of Noah being able to build a three deck boat that could survive at sea.

What happened to all this technology? Did Noah's family fail to teach the kids how to do all this stuff? That would be odd considering each generation supposedly lived for hundreds of years. It simply doesn't make sense and there isn't a shred of evidence that any of these technologies existed millions of years ago. So did humans somehow lose all this technology and it was rediscovered later? And why isn't there any evidence whatsoever of this technology?

It is a common point that a lot was lost in the flood, but beyond that., there is a lot of controversy over Noah being able to build a boat to the magnitude claimed.  Again a very long discussion and honestly, I don't know all the details behind that discussion myself.  I'm sure we could youtube a few discussions on the topic.

Be it that record keeping was also a newer invention and a lot of things had wiped out entire people groups here and there throughout the ages, it was not uncommon to find forgotten technology reinvented later by other people groups.  Why should the flood story be any different?  Maybe Noah believed all the technology known was evil and therefore didn't transfer it onto his children.  We can come up with many more hypotheticals. 

All we know about anything is that we found nothing before certain dates... and the further we look back, the less we find.  This opens up a world of possibilities for a population that existed millions of years ago.  We know that people 2 million years ago had axes... that's all we know... is that all they had for tools?  I find it hard to believe that. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, so every people on the face of the planet has been at war every day using that definition. Makes the first part of the prediction not so impressive. I don't see why ancient humans would have thought eventual peace would be a likely conclusion. They existed in conflict every single day of their lives, when something happens every single day you assume it will happen tomorrow. It makes sense then that they would see the only possible way to achieve peace is for something powerful to intervene, like god. When God comes down here and puts the whole world at peace you can point to the prophecy and say "Aha! See it was prophetic and we were right." Until then, there is nothing to indicate that the prophecy is at all accurate. 

many people today still think there's a potential for eventual peace... you really think ancient people would be any different?  IN fact, they'd probably be more inclined to think that peace would come as quickly as the next king.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Everything I say is bullshit, have you noticed the initials of my name? Don't believe any of it until you have verified evidence Smiling

good to know Eye-wink

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

We don't have 0 information, we have rather significant amounts of archaelogical evidence that gives us significant clues as to how humans lived and it isn't consistent with the accounts in the bible. That is why there is a lot of reasons to be skeptical.

except that when taking into consideration how the writer typically portrayed a historical story from the time, it blows those archaeological evidences against scripture out of the water.... they don't have an archaeological study Bible on the basis that archaeology disproves scripture, rather it exists because archaeology supports scripture.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why do you hold god's actions to a different moral standard than another human's actions?

God is Almighty!  Maker of all, He is judge jury and executioner. He is above all.... that's why.  

Having the power to perform actions doesn't make it moral to do them. 

no it doesn't, but being the creator of everything including the Laws of man and science,  and being above all "almighty" does. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I reflect on things all the time and the moral conclusions I come to are in some ways drastically different than those that people tell me God has. If he wrote it on my heart, why does my heart tell me the opposite?

you have not chosen to allow God to guide your heart.. you have chosen to guide your own heart.  also sometimes those differences are really misunderstandings and not so different.  Your issue with innocent suffering is in line with God despite how you don't see it that way...

Beyond Saving wrote:

He would also have to judge and punish perfectly. 

absolutely.  So how is killing innocent children judging and punishing perfectly?  Good question... how many was it again??? and how old were they?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't think every act of immorality makes a person bad. Good people can do immoral things because people are not perfect. We make mistakes. God designed us, he should have known we weren't perfect, so it shouldn't have been a surprise. It is ridiculous to demand perfection from something you knowingly created to be imperfect.

actually to the contrary.  It is understood that we were created perfectly... with one stipulation.  We can make choices.  Some might argue that the ability to choose causes us as a creation to be imperfect, but psychology shows that choices are always made based on external stimuli.  In other words, our choices were not from within that caused us to be imperfect.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

It is the system and those of us who created it and have the power to change it. Which includes me, you, the judge, everyone. Again, you are pointing at human imperfections and using that to justify God's imperfections. Humans are not perfect, our systems are not perfect, our justice is not perfect. If we could improve the system so that 100% of the children get raised in quality families we should do so. The goal of the system is to provide kids good lives, it fails because we are human and not perfect, but we try. Why do we try? Because we believe that children shouldn't be punished simply because they were unlucky enough to have bad parents. You claim God is perfect, he had the power to protect those children from punishment perfectly, he didn't.  

I'm not trying to justify an imperfection you claim God has, I'm proving a point you just made... that it's our responsibility.  We have the power to change, but we don't.  God knows this.  God has the power to destroy all the evil adults and spare the children, but God also knew that those children would then be orphaned and likely suffer because of it... Noah and his wife would be the only adults left in the world.  We can have special pleading about how God can do anything so God could have provided X, but that's not logical now is it.  If it is logical rational reasoning, then a Christian claiming "God did it" is justified with that statement.  I don't think you would agree with that, so why claim God could do it as an excuse here?

Beyond Saving wrote:

1. So if Hitler were God he would have had the authority? 

...and would not have tried to destroy all of his own followers yes.  You have to understand that if Hitler was God, Hitler would be completely different... either that or humanity would be completely different and thus the slaughter still would not have happened.

Beyond Saving wrote:

2. Obviously his hopes failed and eliminating humanity didn't change anything, the descendants of Noah aren't all that different from what humans are said to have been before. So God went through a completely pointless exercise and caused a lot of pain and suffering for no apparent reason. 

well.... I don't remember any other part of scripture claiming that people continuously had only evil in their thoughts and hearts... people as a whole existence that is.  So no, it never got quite as bad as it had.  But it's also why God ultimately sent His son down to die for all of humanity.  God knew that waiting for humanity to become pure evil again and destroying them again would not be the answer, so God sent His son to die so that we may have life.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
You were unable, And have bitten off more than you can chew




 Alternate Christian viewpoints


Problem : Wooden Ship. The  Ark is too large to have been made from wood. The wood would buckle and surely not maintain hull integrity in rough seas.

Answer: The ark’s dimensions were built at a 6:1 ratio, which is very similar to modern ocean going vessels. Such dimensions are common in ocean vessels because they’re best for handling pitching, rolling and overall stability in rough seas

  This isnt worth anyone's time. Or Investigation "lite" .. All Aig and ICR have ever asked is :Would it float and did it have buoyancy ? This is what anyone would call a "non-answer"; no-one is even approaching the question of if it was sea-worthy ?  While providing the public, with a ridiculous sham  of a moored vessel or moored seafood restaurant, as a replica ship.  If they got 73-million dollars in their pocket for a Theme-park.  How about give me some, I will gladly rent-a Cray supercomput(-er, ing) or cloud arrays, and with the help of two Undergraduates, and put this puppy to bed. I am less unconscionable than the staffers or Mr Ken Ham is. Where's my money ?!?

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes, Yessam we are talking about the Ark (indeed):

 


 

 Diluviologist, have numbers of between 16,200 to 17, 000 (as the round numbers)  they used to calculate the relative size of the cages/enclosures on Noah's Ark, the total NU. of animals!

 



 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:You don't

Jabberwocky wrote:

You don't have to empirically prove that omniscience includes knowledge of the future. It's simply the definition of the word. Stop trying to muddy up the waters. 

no, it's not in the definition of the word.  None of the definitions I've seen uses the word "future".  it states unlimited knowledge or understanding.  It is controversial whether that includes future or not.  If the future is written and we really don't have choice, then yes it is included, but if we have choice and the future can change, then no.    The waters are muddy with the definition of omniscience...  I'm just making it clearer. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Confusingly written and unimportant, but here's a question: Can your god jump into the middle of this circle? If, not, he's not omniscient.

God would exist in the middle of this circle... which is why is was, is and always will be.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I could accept that everything was planned in such a case, but it doesn't mean I'm not making my own decisions. It just means that someone knows exactly what I'm going to do. If someone sets your house on fire while you're awake, they didn't manipulate your brain into getting you outside, they simply did something that would entice the majority of humans to get out of their house. It was still the person's choice to run. 

...but predestination suggests that if you were destined to burn in that fire, no matter what you do or how aware you are, you will burn in that fire.  I'm with you on being able to make a choice.  I don't accept predestination

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I adhere moreso to the first understanding that God knows creation so well that he can deduce a pretty clear timeline.  He also does have the ability to mainpulate the timeline to ultimately work out in His favor.  With that said, He could go to the degree where He predetermines all of our actions and futures, or He could allow us to make choices and only manipulate the timeline to allow what He says will come to pass happen.  I believe He allows us to make choices for ourselves.  I could be wrong!  But that then does raise up a lot of questions.  

Question 1: Where in the bible does it describe this? If the answer is "none" then you're just making things up here.

Jesus told Peter in Matthew 26, "before the rooster crows 3 times, you will betray me".  (evidence of deducing a clear futuristic timeline based on what He knows)

The story of Jonah and the Whale is a good example of God manipulating the futuristic timeline to work out in His favor.

The story of Moses and the plagues sent on Egypt are an example of both

Jabberwocky wrote:

So basically what you're saying is that reading the bible, and reading of the countless atrocities either committed or approved by god, are actually good deeds because our knowledge is vastly inferior to god. The obvious question is; how have you, using your own brain, decided that it's a good idea to cede authority to this god? 

Ah, now that is a good question.  and that is the process of coming to Christ.  The first step is to believe that a metaphysical world exists, then accept that there's a God above all other gods.  From there through study I have deduced that Judeo-Christian God is that God.  Then I needed to get to know this God through study, prayer and guidance for many years.  I found the best way to approach this is with careful skepticism and logic.(this is not a typical approach that most religions would take... this allows you to understand why religion is not the way to get to know God)  There comes a point when you learn enough about this God to realize how finite your understanding of everything really is and how much this God really truly loves you and all of humanity.  It's also acceptance that you don't have all the answers and probably never will, but this God does and only has the best intentions for His people. 
That summary I'm sure doesn't answer your question directly, so to answer it directly, it comes down to building a relationship with God and through that relationship knowing God and understanding God to a point where you comprehend Gods intentions kind of like you comprehend a friends intentions when they ask you to do them a favor.  If they're your best friend, I'm sure without explanation you can understand the intention behind the request.  Same applies with God once you've built that close relationship with Him.  this is how i"ve "decided that it's a good idea to cede authority to this God."

Jabberwocky wrote:

So what you're saying in essence is, every time I make a conscious decision, I can further confuse god? Or at least hinder his ability as to what I'll do next? Seriously, that is some weak level of omniscience. 

no, rather God knows of 1000000 different directions your day could go.  God could deduce the most likely path, but also knows that under certain circumstances a certain number of other paths could be taken that would alter the outcome of your day.  You would not have confused God, rather you could choose a path that is less on the line of where God intended you to go.  Over time, you could be miles off the path that God wants you on.  I see it more of hope.  God hopes you'll make the decisions that keep you on the right path, when you don't it's a disappointment rather than a surprise.    I could even go as far as to say God probably knows you'll be making the decisions that alter the path He would like you to take, however He still maybe has hope that you'll change your mind and make different decisions.  This is the best way I can humanistically explain it. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

My life isn't aimless. But thanks for assuming that because I don't subscribe to your particular flavour of woo, that my future is aimless. 

it's not "subscribing to my particlular..." anything... it's life as we know it.  If God is real, then any path outside of His is a path to destruction, thus... aimless.  I understand why it is seen as "subscribing to a particular flavour" or whatever you want to call it, but Christians view it as this is the way it is, just like you view your understanding as reality.  It's not, "buy my book", it's supposed to be "wake up! this is real life!"  That's our goal.  If we're wrong, true Christians want to know.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, but the fact remains that omniscience means all knowing. Being unable to predict the future is a limit of one's knowledge. Having full knowledge of EVERYTHING in the present (and the physics behind it) mean that you know what will happen next anyways, even if you can't "see" the future per-se. God's inability to "see" the future in that way wouldn't matter, as his ability to deduce it from the present shouldn't have any limits on it either. You seem to have suggested up there that every time a person makes a decision, god has to "re-calculate" his GPS of omniscience, if you will. That is simply hilarious. I am going to randomly switch hands when I wash dishes tonight. Boy, will god's face be red when he becomes confused about what I'll do next!

You're right, which is why many Christians subscribe to predestination.  It's hard to comprehend a God that can know your every move without having your choices predetermined.  I again believe that God knows of the millions of possibilities in every moment you can choose.  within those milliions in a day, any one choice can deviate an outcome.  The hope is that the outcome will be in line with what God wants.  I don't see it as God didn't know, I see it rather as God knows more than even the skeptic is giving omniscience credit for. 

If God is truly omniscient, then He would know that you have more than 1 choice for the future and that any number of choices can be made at any moment and that they can change at any moment, but that you still have the freedom to choose in the moment.  I believe God put that in creation so that we can be truly responsible for our own actions.  It's easy to blame God for everything if choice is predetermined, but when choice becomes our own, then it's a bit harder. 

Let me ask you this... If God is omnipotent and omniscient... doesn't he have the power to make the choice not to know something and still be all knowing due to the fact that at any moment he can choose to know what He has chosen not to know and thus will always have the ability to know everything?  Consider the irrational thought that God being omnipotent could create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift, which then would contradict His omnipotence.  God has a hope for mankind that by the book of Revelation He has determined will not come to pass and thus His return will be a great an terrible one due to the ultimate choices that humanity makes over an unknown period of time despite the hopes that people will choose otherwise.   I'd say that is a God that is very aware of the future despite any deviance from His ideal.

...***somehow it got erased, but special pleading is determining that everything that does not fit with what one thinks is true is mythical or false despite whether it's true or not because it does not fit with their ideals... is that not what you are doing when you claim that mine is mythical?  BTW, I do not dismiss all other alleged mythical writings as false by your standards.  Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean there's no true basis for their existence.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:caposkia

Ktulu wrote:

caposkia wrote:

the other is considering the scientific understanding of "time".  Einstein concluded that we are moving through time, not the other way around and that if we were able to reach a specific speed, time would slow down or even stop.  If this is true, we can picture time as maybe a circle, where everything on the outside of the circle is moving through time at a specific pace.  Picture a being in the center of the circle.  Time would logically not progress in the center and a being in the center would be able to observe all time, past present and future without having to reap the consequences of progressing time.  That being may also be able to jump into any part of the timeline/circle and manipulate it to change future events.  

the thing with the second perspective is then you must accept predestination... which means that though we think we are free, we really are robots ...

No... This is wrong on many, many levels.  Time is a dimension, the universe gets older in one direction and younger in the opposite direction.  Einstein theorized that time is not independent of space (ironically, as you are suggesting), but it is one thing called space-time.  There is no circle, square or heart shaped time that anyone can be out of, around, or in the center of.  e=mc2 basically means that energy, mass and speed are interconnected.  as your speed increases, your mass increases and it requires more energy to push along.  It is why the general theory of relativity postulates that nothing that has mass can travel faster than the speed of light.  

This sort of vague semantics is used in all theistic arguments.  Nonsense terms such as "immaterial" "out of time" or even "omni-x" have no meaning.  If you can clearly define those terms, then you can use it to prove your god.  Unless we have a definition to work with, you can continue to move the goalposts.  Dr Craig Lane is famous for this sort of nonsense.

my vague samantics took what Einstein concluded and combined it with what Quantum physics has theorized about time.   

You can call it non-sense, but when it comes down to it, if God is real, how would you explain Him?


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If we're

caposkia wrote:

If we're talking about the flood, I dont' remember where it says God drown innocent children.. if it's fact, it can be quoted from scripture or another reliable source.  The Bible has a quote contrary to your claim that He did it without remorse...  Chapter 6 God grieved in His heart.

Oh, he grieved for them? Well I guess that makes the intentional and direct slaughter of billions of infants okay then!

I'm glad you've shown us that as long as you are sad about the genocide you are committing, it's perfectly alright!

Also, feeling sadness is NOT the same as having remorse. Remorse is regretting that you did something, God certainly thought it was the right thing to do.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I see where

caposkia wrote:

I see where the dating can cast doubts on it for you... here's the reasons why it doesn't for me.

First and foremost, we need to understand that this story was written during a time where wine making was known to be happening and thus it is a logical conclusion that if Noah was said to have gotten drunk that it would be from wine.  It is known much further back in history that people would get drunk on other fermented types of fruits and not necessarily by juicing them but many times by letting them ferment as is. 

"much further back" is 3000 years or so. A long time, but in the time frames we are discussing completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no evidence that humans made alcohol earlier than around 10,000 BC. The beverages that appeared at that time were jiu in China (made from rice and honey and flavored with fruit) and beer with wild grape wine following shortly thereafter. Alcohol made from other types of fruits took much longer to appear. That still leaves you with 2 million odd years between when you claim a human drank alcohol and its invention. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

The writer of the story would typically use information that they had handy at the time to associate with a story they were writing that they may not have been able to witness, especially one that had been told verbally over generations.  In this particular case, there is controversy on the actual author of this story and thus we don't need to go there because it's quite a long discussion.

So now you are telling me the bible is not accurate. Ok then. Why believe anything it says? Why bother pointing out single sentences in it as if it is the Truth? A story passed down verbally for generations is completely inaccurate. Ever play the telephone game? And that is just with people in one room at one time. A story passed down for millions of years becomes completely unrecognizable.

For example, a local flood that floods the cave inhabited by an extended nomadic family killing almost all of them becomes a flood of the entire world to kill all of mankind. Some years later, someone adds in a god. Some years later, someone adds in an Ark and all the animals. Suddenly, all the problems in the story disappear because we know it is simply myth that has become greatly embellished because of the inaccuracies of word of mouth and no doubt a desire on the story tellers to make the story make sense even though they forgot details. It is very easy to see how after a thousand years a small flood becomes this fantastical story.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Building a house out of brick vs stone... both would have the same result... a strong foundation.  Brick was known by the writer, brick was used to describe the material a house was built out of.  This association is not uncommon with many ancient writings where the technology claimed in the story may not match up with the dating.  This has been discussed in depth in the Myths Parables and legends or real thread with PJTS early on... I don't remember what page.  We're doing a historical runthrough... you can check it out.  This likely would have been discussed toward the beginning of the thread

Nor did they have stone houses. When I say "brick" I am using the term very loosely. The first bricks were dried mud and water. You are talking about a time before people even built houses, out of anything. And what they did build amounted to huts that were made out of brush. Prior to that, humans lived in temporary shelters or camp in caves. (hence the term "cave man&quotEye-wink

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6821.full.pdf

 

 

caposkia wrote:

It is a common point that a lot was lost in the flood, but beyond that., there is a lot of controversy over Noah being able to build a boat to the magnitude claimed.  Again a very long discussion and honestly, I don't know all the details behind that discussion myself.  I'm sure we could youtube a few discussions on the topic.

Be it that record keeping was also a newer invention and a lot of things had wiped out entire people groups here and there throughout the ages, it was not uncommon to find forgotten technology reinvented later by other people groups.  Why should the flood story be any different?  Maybe Noah believed all the technology known was evil and therefore didn't transfer it onto his children.  We can come up with many more hypotheticals. 

All we know about anything is that we found nothing before certain dates... and the further we look back, the less we find.  This opens up a world of possibilities for a population that existed millions of years ago.  We know that people 2 million years ago had axes... that's all we know... is that all they had for tools?  I find it hard to believe that. 

Sure, it is quite logical that quite a bit would be lost in such a large flood. But then we would expect to find evidence of extremely advanced technology much earlier than it was invented for modern times. Yes, we know they had axes, but those axes were at a technological level we would expect. If you suddenly find evidence of villages, farming, alcohol, boat building etc. that is 2 million+ years old, suddenly there is something that needs to be explained and a flood wiping out the whole community might be a logical explanation. But we have not found any such evidence.

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

We don't have 0 information, we have rather significant amounts of archaelogical evidence that gives us significant clues as to how humans lived and it isn't consistent with the accounts in the bible. That is why there is a lot of reasons to be skeptical.

 

caposkia wrote:

except that when taking into consideration how the writer typically portrayed a historical story from the time, it blows those archaeological evidences against scripture out of the water.... they don't have an archaeological study Bible on the basis that archaeology disproves scripture, rather it exists because archaeology supports scripture.

Show me the archaeology that supports it. I showed you mine that blows it out of the water unless you change the time to millions of years ago and say that technology levels were much higher at 2 million BC than 20,000 BC and disappeared.  

 

caposkia wrote:

absolutely.  So how is killing innocent children judging and punishing perfectly?  Good question... how many was it again??? and how old were they?

Tell me what year it happened and we can come up with a good guess. The ages were no doubt every age between 0 and whatever you want to call adult enough that god killing them is ok. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm not trying to justify an imperfection you claim God has, I'm proving a point you just made... that it's our responsibility.  We have the power to change, but we don't.  God knows this.  God has the power to destroy all the evil adults and spare the children, but God also knew that those children would then be orphaned and likely suffer because of it... Noah and his wife would be the only adults left in the world.  We can have special pleading about how God can do anything so God could have provided X, but that's not logical now is it.  If it is logical rational reasoning, then a Christian claiming "God did it" is justified with that statement.  I don't think you would agree with that, so why claim God could do it as an excuse here?

You have special pleading all over the place. You have admitted yourself that the reason the kids died is that god wanted them to die. He is omnipotent, he could have let them live. In a world where an omnipotent being is really interacting "God did it" is a very rational explanation. It is only irrational when there is no evidence that an omnipotent being exists. So either god wanted to drown them, or he is not omnipotent.

If he wanted to drown them, then I think the question of whether or not drowning them is a moral act is relevant. I say drowning them is clearly immoral. Apparently you think drowning them is moral. Fine, you are immoral. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If we're

caposkia wrote:

If we're talking about the flood, I dont' remember where it says God drown innocent children.. if it's fact, it can be quoted from scripture or another reliable source.  The Bible has a quote contrary to your claim that He did it without remorse...  Chapter 6 God grieved in His heart.

Fact 3 lies the issue... children under the age of 10 did not have the capacity to care for themselves.  So God kills their evil parents and leaves the hypothetical children alive... then what?  More God magic right?

That would fall into confirmation bias. 

Every post i make justifies the actions of God, why?  Everything we have information on justifies His actions... this story has no evidence that would contradict that.  if you disagree with this statement, then it sounds to me like we need to move onto another story you feel God was unjust in.... preferably a story we actually have more details on.

 

Nothing in this myth is accurate historically or archaeologically. Nothing in this myth justifies killing everyone in the entire world except on family and about 200,000 animals.

God grieved. Sounds a lot like my mom who would spank me and then cry with me. Parenting tip number 1: don't punish your children and then lay a guilt trip on them.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RobbyPants

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

caposkia wrote:
How is "you have 120 years" not the same as "shape up or else"??

How is it the same? I seriously don't see that on several re-reads.

Lemme put it another way. I'm a parent talking to a child; "you have 5 seconds to do as you're told..."

That doesn't answer my question. That verse wasn't worded as anything approaching "you have 120 years, or else". It simply states that people will only live 120 years; there's no ultimatum or corse of action to correct this situation. It's just a simple statement, no intervention possible.

Seriously. Read that whole passage. It's a statement that God got pissed off at people and decided to kill them all. Nowhere does it say "God went and told the people to stop being wicked, or they would drown."

Genesis 6:1-7 KJV wrote:

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

So, you have yet to show me God intervening with the wicked people before he drown them, thus, you currently have no case that God warned them, so it was okay. This kills your whole parent warning a child metaphor. You will have to show me specific intervention on God's part, where the people could have reacted.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPantsI'm saying that Cain is one of many examples throughout scripture... did you read what I wrote? [/quote wrote:

Which other examples are there? I'm asking for those. You have so far given me a single example of Cain (Monday), and are trying to conivince me that 120 years thing is the Tuesday through Thursday. I'm not seeing it.

Ok, Moses, read both Kings, Solomon, James, Peter, Thomas... need more?

Every single one of these comes after the flood. How could the people who were drown possibly have reacted to any of these? Show me where God intervened with the people before he drown them.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

This assumes God has demonstrated being a good worker. I've asked you for examples of this.

good worker is general. God intervening names are listed above as other examples among many... I'm sure you can go to bible.com and put in those names and find many passages where God intervened with them even many times.

Again: after the flood. You can't intervene after you did something. It has to come before. Go to bible.com and show me one that happens before hand. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You are the one asserting that God intervened with the people before the flood.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

I'm suggesting that you have C4 and a sniper rifle. STOP IGNORING THE SNIPER RIFLE! He has both. He has clearly demonstrated the ability to precision strike many people at the same time (10th plague). Stop putting imaginary limitations on your God. You already said it in your first response in this post: "you're right, God wanted to destroy humanity... killing children would be necessary to destroy humanity."

You admit he wanted to kill all the children, then you defend his doing so by saying he couldn't have done anything about it. You're not being consitant in your argument.


Here's the thing though... there's a reason I'm ignoring the sniper rifle. God has show examples of using our metaphorical sniper rifle... he has also shown many examples of using C4... I don't remember an instance where God used both at once. It was always an either or. If there were any innocents in the blast radius, He would tell them to leave with specific instructions.

In the case of the flood, He used C-4... his plan? to wipe out humanity (period)

Perfect. You just conceded that God could have used C4 or a sniper rifle and chose, on his own acord, to use the C4. Ergo, God killed children when he had other options. Ergo, God killed children because he wanted to. Ergo, your god is a monster. This is what I was getting at from the get-go on page 1. Even if you prove intervention above, it still is moot, because you are tacitly admitting that God kills children when it's not necessary.

QED.
 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:my vague

caposkia wrote:

my vague samantics took what Einstein concluded and combined it with what Quantum physics has theorized about time.   

You can call it non-sense, but when it comes down to it, if God is real, how would you explain Him?

Time is a very poorly understood concept in physics.  It is heavily misunderstood in popular culture, hence the vague semantics resonating with a large majority.

That is a very good question.  I don't have a very good answer.  If god were real, I would expect him to behave in a way consistent with empirical observation and of such quality as to not be necessary.  Or at the very least make it so that it would appear that way.  The major issue I have with religion is the intellectual laziness of giving up and defining the unknown as "god" or "god did it".  Truth is, not one of us knows, and we should be comfortable enough to admit that.  It may very well turn out that there is a god, or a multi-dimensional universe creating chicken.  At this point in time, however, not one of us has any idea.  The bs that comes with organised (and often not organised) religion FAR outweighs any benefits the false closure of "knowledge" derived from "prophets" and man of faith alike.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:caposkia

ThunderJones wrote:

caposkia wrote:

If we're talking about the flood, I dont' remember where it says God drown innocent children.. if it's fact, it can be quoted from scripture or another reliable source.  The Bible has a quote contrary to your claim that He did it without remorse...  Chapter 6 God grieved in His heart.

Oh, he grieved for them? Well I guess that makes the intentional and direct slaughter of billions of infants okay then!

I'm glad you've shown us that as long as you are sad about the genocide you are committing, it's perfectly alright!

Also, feeling sadness is NOT the same as having remorse. Remorse is regretting that you did something, God certainly thought it was the right thing to do.

He grieved that it had come to this.  His actions were a result of judgement based on the Law.  I am impressed that you believe they were all infants though.... and billions at that!!! especially seeing as the population of people in general at the time couldn't have exceeded the tens of thousands... BABIES WERE TAKING OVER HUMANITY!!! Such evil babies.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:"much

Beyond Saving wrote:

"much further back" is 3000 years or so. A long time, but in the time frames we are discussing completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no evidence that humans made alcohol earlier than around 10,000 BC. The beverages that appeared at that time were jiu in China (made from rice and honey and flavored with fruit) and beer with wild grape wine following shortly thereafter. Alcohol made from other types of fruits took much longer to appear. That still leaves you with 2 million odd years between when you claim a human drank alcohol and its invention. 

fermented fruit is not "making alcohol" it's eating bad fruit that has in turn created alcohol.  There are evidences of these occurances and that people put 2 and 2 together and realized that if you let certain fruits sit for a long time, you can get a funny high off of them.  

Also, there isn't really much of any evidences of much happening around or long before 10,000 BC.  I get that you're convinced due to the fact that we have no evidences of ways of getting drunk before then that people just couldn't get drunk, but I find it hard to believe people didn't find some way of getting drunk without making drinks.  Ancient cultures untouched by outside humanity have been found to have ways of getting high and/or drunk, why would ancient Biblical cultures be any different?

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 

The writer of the story would typically use information that they had handy at the time to associate with a story they were writing that they may not have been able to witness, especially one that had been told verbally over generations.  In this particular case, there is controversy on the actual author of this story and thus we don't need to go there because it's quite a long discussion.

So now you are telling me the bible is not accurate. Ok then. Why believe anything it says? Why bother pointing out single sentences in it as if it is the Truth? A story passed down verbally for generations is completely inaccurate. Ever play the telephone game? And that is just with people in one room at one time. A story passed down for millions of years becomes completely unrecognizable.

For example, a local flood that floods the cave inhabited by an extended nomadic family killing almost all of them becomes a flood of the entire world to kill all of mankind. Some years later, someone adds in a god. Some years later, someone adds in an Ark and all the animals. Suddenly, all the problems in the story disappear because we know it is simply myth that has become greatly embellished because of the inaccuracies of word of mouth and no doubt a desire on the story tellers to make the story make sense even though they forgot details. It is very easy to see how after a thousand years a small flood becomes this fantastical story.  

The same reason why you believe in any history from a time so long ago be it that it all has such errors in it.  I never said the Bible is not accurate, only that the authors used what they knew to portray what had happened... does that make a story inaccurate?  Names of places and methods of achieving similar results change over time, but because a later generation explains it by the names and means of what they use does that automatically make it impossible for the earlier generation to have had the same results?  of course not.

What your claiming is not at all what I was saying.  It is generally known that the Bible stories were very carefully translated from one scribe to the next... in fact they are understood to be the most congruent through the generations compared to other writings that were translated in the same manner... google it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nor did they have stone houses. When I say "brick" I am using the term very loosely. The first bricks were dried mud and water. You are talking about a time before people even built houses, out of anything. And what they did build amounted to huts that were made out of brush. Prior to that, humans lived in temporary shelters or camp in caves. (hence the term "cave man&quotEye-wink

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6821.full.pdf

Beyond Saving wrote:

I used rock loosely too.    I was not suggesting that the hut or house was made strictly out of rock and nothing else... if you read your link carefully, you'll find that the main hut discussed in the article had 3 floors and stone was used in the making of that particular hut, which was unique to that hut and was not used in other huts on the same site... point and case, it was a strong house built.  That was the point of the statement in scripture and thus your article further supports that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sure, it is quite logical that quite a bit would be lost in such a large flood. But then we would expect to find evidence of extremely advanced technology much earlier than it was invented for modern times. Yes, we know they had axes, but those axes were at a technological level we would expect. If you suddenly find evidence of villages, farming, alcohol, boat building etc. that is 2 million+ years old, suddenly there is something that needs to be explained and a flood wiping out the whole community might be a logical explanation. But we have not found any such evidence.

why would we necessarily have to find all that?  I was assuming the technology we would find would still be seen as consistent to the times... though I guess anything's possible right?

Beyond Saving wrote:

We don't have 0 information, we have rather significant amounts of archaelogical evidence that gives us significant clues as to how humans lived and it isn't consistent with the accounts in the bible. That is why there is a lot of reasons to be skeptical.

I still have yet to see it.  Taking the English Bible at face value can lead one to believe that this is true, however learning the languages and what approach writers typically took to writing about something in their history reveals a much more congruent story with archaeology.  again, there's a whole study Bible out there written around Archaelogical evidences.  don't think that would have taken off if what you say is true.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Show me the archaeology that supports it. I showed you mine that blows it out of the water unless you change the time to millions of years ago and say that technology levels were much higher at 2 million BC than 20,000 BC and disappeared.  

Read the Archaelogical study Bible.  We'll go from there.  

Just to keep consistency with our discussions.  We've accepted the millions of years ago possibility though it is theory be it that there is no specific dating to base it on and technology just as likely could have been somewhat more advanced then gone backwards especially if such a catastrophic event occurred.  E.g. it is theorized that when we get a major solar flare that hits earth, we will be sent back to the dark ages in technology.  Granted in this scenario generations beyond will be able to find evidences of our previous technology, but we also use materials that are more likely to last through the ages.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

absolutely.  So how is killing innocent children judging and punishing perfectly?  Good question... how many was it again??? and how old were they?

Tell me what year it happened and we can come up with a good guess. The ages were no doubt every age between 0 and whatever you want to call adult enough that god killing them is ok. 

I can't... so all in all.. we can only guess as to what really happened and ages as to which children suffered... and whether they suffered more than they already were in life.  therefore determining the justification of God doing what He did based on this story alone is insufficient and illogical.  I can't justify that it was alright, and you can't justify that it was wrong... we'd have to base it on other things God has done through the ages and what He is doing today.  If you feel that I'm running from the topic again, then please show me your evidences for the conclusion you have... there must be more than what scripture is telling us for you to rationally come up with that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have special pleading all over the place. You have admitted yourself that the reason the kids died is that god wanted them to die. He is omnipotent, he could have let them live. In a world where an omnipotent being is really interacting "God did it" is a very rational explanation. It is only irrational when there is no evidence that an omnipotent being exists. So either god wanted to drown them, or he is not omnipotent.

If he wanted to drown them, then I think the question of whether or not drowning them is a moral act is relevant. I say drowning them is clearly immoral. Apparently you think drowning them is moral. Fine, you are immoral. 

 

it is special pleading to say what you're saying to justify your conclusion.  I have simply told you that I justify Gods actions on this story based on what I know of Him throughout scripture and personally.  You are determined to continue with special pleading to defend your case without other basis.  

Again, we can only assume that drowning them was worse than letting them live.  What was their life like if you're so sure that it was better to let them live?   Also, what would have come of them after all adults were killed?  The "God could have" statements are nothing more than special pleading for your case because you have no evidences or rationality as to why that would have been better other than your own opinion.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Nothing in this

cj wrote:

Nothing in this myth is accurate historically or archaeologically. Nothing in this myth justifies killing everyone in the entire world except on family and about 200,000 animals.

God grieved. Sounds a lot like my mom who would spank me and then cry with me. Parenting tip number 1: don't punish your children and then lay a guilt trip on them.

 

that's opinion unless you have evidences showing otherwise.  Also God declared them guilty before punishing them, not after.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:That

RobbyPants wrote:

That doesn't answer my question. That verse wasn't worded as anything approaching "you have 120 years, or else". It simply states that people will only live 120 years; there's no ultimatum or corse of action to correct this situation. It's just a simple statement, no intervention possible.

Seriously. Read that whole passage. It's a statement that God got pissed off at people and decided to kill them all. Nowhere does it say "God went and told the people to stop being wicked, or they would drown."

I'm basing that on every other part of scripture... He consistently made people aware of what He was about to do.  You're pleading that in this single case He decided to do something completely different... then go back to warning people again.

the 120 years is generally understood to be in reference to that particular generation and not the length of time that people will get to live... even Guiness shows that people can live past 120 years.

RobbyPants wrote:


Genesis 6:1-7 KJV wrote:

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

So, you have yet to show me God intervening with the wicked people before he drown them, thus, you currently have no case that God warned them, so it was okay. This kills your whole parent warning a child metaphor. You will have to show me specific intervention on God's part, where the people could have reacted.

Who was God talking to when he mentioned 120 years and that His spirit would not strive for man forever?  Was that just a thought bubble in a cartoon strip???

RobbyPants wrote:


Every single one of these comes after the flood. How could the people who were drown possibly have reacted to any of these? Show me where God intervened with the people before he drown them.

point and case, there are examples of God giving the heads up before and after and no examples of God neglecting to do so before and after so your case that they didn't know is gone.  lack of information does not suggest that no one knew.  There are plenty of examples where people knew.  It is generally understood by people more educated than you and I on scripture that the warning had come through the statements that God will not dwell with man forever and the 120 years.

RobbyPants wrote:


Again: after the flood. You can't intervene after you did something. It has to come before. Go to bible.com and show me one that happens before hand. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You are the one asserting that God intervened with the people before the flood.

I've already stated it quite a few times.  My homework is done... if you need to see the examples first hand or better understand how those statements I claimed can be understood as warning, you need to do some homework too.  Again you asked for other examples.  There is a very small timeline beforehand and a very large one after.  Are you telling me that after the flood God changed His mind and decided from then on out to warn people??? oh except with Adam and Eve and Cain... he decided He would warn just them beforehand... then take a little break in between?  Do you honestly believe that?

RobbyPants wrote:

Perfect. You just conceded that God could have used C4 or a sniper rifle and chose, on his own acord, to use the C4. Ergo, God killed children when he had other options. Ergo, God killed children because he wanted to. Ergo, your god is a monster. This is what I was getting at from the get-go on page 1. Even if you prove intervention above, it still is moot, because you are tacitly admitting that God kills children when it's not necessary.

QED.
 

I've been saying this from the beginning.   Your decision to take the responsibility of the children off the parents has no weight on God no matter how much you want it to be.  You can believe my God is a monster and that's fine.  It takes speical pleading to get there in the first place.  I know i will not change your mind on the matter. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:caposkia

Ktulu wrote:

caposkia wrote:

my vague samantics took what Einstein concluded and combined it with what Quantum physics has theorized about time.   

You can call it non-sense, but when it comes down to it, if God is real, how would you explain Him?

Time is a very poorly understood concept in physics.  It is heavily misunderstood in popular culture, hence the vague semantics resonating with a large majority.

That is a very good question.  I don't have a very good answer.  If god were real, I would expect him to behave in a way consistent with empirical observation and of such quality as to not be necessary.  Or at the very least make it so that it would appear that way.  The major issue I have with religion is the intellectual laziness of giving up and defining the unknown as "god" or "god did it".  Truth is, not one of us knows, and we should be comfortable enough to admit that.  It may very well turn out that there is a god, or a multi-dimensional universe creating chicken.  At this point in time, however, not one of us has any idea.  The bs that comes with organised (and often not organised) religion FAR outweighs any benefits the false closure of "knowledge" derived from "prophets" and man of faith alike.

 

At least you get that.  Most think they have the asnwers and then get upset with you when you point out that they couldn't possibly have a sound conclusion on the subject.  The necessity of God or the apparent necessity has nothing to do with the existence of said God.  That is under the same magnitude of taking any creature and having a sound explanation on why (for example) my pet cat is necessary or not then determining its true existence based on that conclusion.  It's just not logical.  

Yes God created everything and so it is generally understood by those in religion that God is necessary, but if God is real, then it makes sense that He makes a universe that works so well that it would seem that it manifested on its own.  That's just smart design... its' self sustaining.. to a degree.  Be it that there might be a spiritual side to existence, our observable universe is literally only half of it, and we don't even know half of the ins and outs of that half.  This puts us in a very restrictive perspective when discussing the existence of said God.... or any metaphysical existence for that matter.  

I agree with your issues on religion.  This is why I hate religion.  it's separatism.  If you read the New Testament, there's a very clear message of open mindedness and unity in it... yet most mainstream Christian groups are quite close minded and also quite uneducated on the very thing they so adamantly defend.  

I stick with what I know because just like I'm sure you've heard from many Christians, I have a relationship with said God.  How can one have a relationship with something that doesnt' exist?  Psychosis maybe... but I seem to be as normal as the next person.  I have no history that I'm aware of of any such manifestations of the mind.  I also observe external stimuli that can be associated with said God and that also adds to the undrestanding and relationship.  Education and study rounds out the understanding of what life to lead with this God and how to react to certain situations.  To bad most Christians don't comprehend what they read... or so it seems. 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
↑ (It's your high-profile cases need attending)

  Re  :: It's your high-profile cases need attending too



 

 

 Matthew XXI    ---    You will receive. Now when the Son of man came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him, as He was teaching, and said: “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?”  But Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: The baptism of John—where was his from? From heaven or from men?” And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’  But if we say,  ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude of people, for all count John as a prophet.” So they answered Him and said, “We do not know.” And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
I'll drop the not

I'll drop the not intervening point. You make a point that if he intervenes in other places, that it's certainly possible (and maybe likely) that he did in this case. I find it mildly troubling that it's not explicitly mentioned, but I can move beyond that.


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Perfect. You just conceded that God could have used C4 or a sniper rifle and chose, on his own acord, to use the C4. Ergo, God killed children when he had other options. Ergo, God killed children because he wanted to. Ergo, your god is a monster. This is what I was getting at from the get-go on page 1. Even if you prove intervention above, it still is moot, because you are tacitly admitting that God kills children when it's not necessary.

QED.
 

I've been saying this from the beginning.   Your decision to take the responsibility of the children off the parents has no weight on God no matter how much you want it to be.  You can believe my God is a monster and that's fine.

You keep changing back to this any time I prove that God had 100% control over the situation. You're effectively blaming the parents for putting their kids right in the path of a person with C4 and a sniper rifle who loves to use C4 when he doesn't have to. Sure, I'll blame the parents with you, but I'll blame God more. Regardless of whether or not the parents are short sighted or selfish, God still chooses to use C4 on children when he has other alternatives. It's a case of them both being wrong, and you will only admit half of this.

 

caposkia wrote:
It takes speical pleading to get there in the first place.  
How so?

 

caposkia wrote:
I know i will not change your mind on the matter. 
I wouldn't expect you to. The cognitive dissonance is really tough. I went through it, too.