(October 31, 2012 at 11:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote: This is an extension of another thread that I started. I've fully fleshed out the idea and came to a definite conclusion using God himself.

While you make a logical argument, anyone can disprove something if they're allowed to apply the rules of its components to its whole, and that remains the flaw in your argument. If I could prove that there is something in the Bible that is without a doubt an iron clad guarantee of divine working, would that prove to you that the whole of the Bible is true, or would you put it down to coincidence maybe?

If you want to critisize something, you must do it on the merits of what it is. For instance, if it's political you do it politically, if it's science, you approach it scientifically.

(October 31, 2012 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: That basically brings us back to square one; what is this Original Sin that Jesus is saving us from?

Well, if it's purely allegorical we don't have to know what it is, you still haven't proved that it doesn't exist. If it's allegorical then, it could refer to a number of logically possible things.

Quote:Works in mysterious ways that are synonomous to his non-existence.

Works in mysterious ways that are indistinguishable to his non-existence, rather. It's not synonymous because it isn't a similar meaning - a "God that works in mysterious ways" is still a God. It has a completely different meaning because it still implies that there was at least a "God" that created the universe and some other parts may be literal such as Jesus being himself incarnate. You can't disprove those parts if the rest is allegory. We can't tell the difference - but that's the whole point of the Christian God anyway - he's completely undetectable. He's invisible, intangible, etc, so how have you proved that he doesn't exist if the only literal parts are that God created the universe and Jesus is himself incarnate?

Quote:That apologetic line is evasive and a cop out.

I agree that there are many cop-outs, but that just proves that there's no evidence for God, it doesn't prove that he doesn't exist if the interpretation of his existence is the almost entirely allegorical case I described above.

Quote:Sure, the "sloppiness" is subjective, but it nontheless shows God isn't all-powerful and couldn't will his word how he wanted to.

You haven't demonstrated that he isn't "all powerful" if he merely "works in mysterious ways".

(October 31, 2012 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Am I reading what I think I'm reading?

Yes, and seemingly for the first time.

Quote:It's almost implied here that God is apathetic towards those that choose darkness, but on top of that he approves of it by selling that lie to us himself???

As noted, it’s judgment, not apathy or approval.

Quote:
True, humans are good at self-deception, with over 3 000+ gods ever imagined I'd say you've got a point.

Can you be more specific as to where we are deceiving ourselves? Is it through using God's willed universe to learn about God's willed universe or do we have God's willed word all wrong? Given what I said in the OP, I'd say the latter.

I’d say we’re deceiving ourselves with our origins models, but the main point is that your conclusion/premise that “we can rest assured that the interpretation of the universe is exactly what he willed. This means that the universe really is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old” is unsupported.

As you note yourself that your argument is akin to do-mi-NOES, consider what happens when one section of the domino chain fails: the rest of it fails as well.

Quote:
If you're suggesting that Satan deceives through the physical world, then I have to conclude God isn't all-powerful or isn't all-knowing.

No you don’t. This is another false dichotomy. You could also conclude that God allows Satan to attempt to deceive us for God’s own purposes. We don’t know all of God’s dealings with the angels.

BTW, I’m not suggesting that Satan actually tampers with physical evidence. The deception is in the interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves. Creationists generally agree with evolutionists on objective measurements.

(October 31, 2012 at 11:52 pm)Drich Wrote: Would you perfer the Hebrew in Gen 1:16
עשה `asah
means Made; as in to appoint.

On the 4th day God appointed or made the sun to rule the Day and the moon to rule the night.

I see you're flirting with the idea that the creation narrative isn't actually speaking about the creation of these things itself..which would not be reconciling the narrative with reality, simply divorcing the narrative from those uncomfortably ignorant bits...as I said..no means of reconciliation is possible. Please, tell me more about how the creation narrative has nothing to do with creation.......then I won't have to explain to any passing dolts that there is no genesis in genesis.

Drich Wrote:Absoultly! because it is from your persumption that you believe that your understanding of the only appologetic that would denounce the existance of God is completely consistant with what the bible actually says. This appologetic aside I ask you to provide the scripture that gives the dates or time frames needed to show the deception you have outlined.

I should have clarified in the OP that it's a range of things that would be scientifically true, not just the age of the earth. I guess for A&E, evolution is the big one.

Quote:Actually no. You have not asked me where I thought the universe came from. If you had I would have said I don't know. Or I would have simply said God did it.

Jeewiz. So Biblical Theism has no answers for how the universe formed? Drich... c'mon Biblical Theism is very good for goalpost-moving, but to say Genesis doesn't tell you how God created the universe is the most laughable thing I've ever heard.

Quote:Your argueing an invalid arguement. Again I point to my arguement on evolution. One does not exclude the other.

Quote:One more time the theory I put forward in my evolution thread accounts for both creation AND leaves room for evolution. One does not mean the other is implausable.

God had to rely on unnatural means, i.e. bestiality, to produce the first true humans after creation. That's what you're proposing.

a) Such a bizzare mix of genes would leave behind traces of A&E DNA being injected into the natural course of evolution. Not surprisingly, it's only you that claims such a thing. Fossil records don't indicate that "external" genes were mixed in with the "monkey men" already existing. Otherwise the theory of evolution would naturally involve the observations that might make your unique claims true.

b) Bestiality doesn't produce proper life with a chance to live. It's two different species for God's sake!

Undeceived Wrote:FallentoReason,
Do you think God would have created the earth out of molten lava or simply 'spoke it into existence'?

From the big bang, I guess it follows that Earth and all other planets formed from "molten lava" or the natural process by which it happens.

---

(November 1, 2012 at 12:38 am)Godschild Wrote:

(October 31, 2012 at 11:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

---

This is an extension of another thread that I started. I've fully fleshed out the idea and came to a definite conclusion using God himself.

Let's assume the Judeo-Christian god is real. This would imply that he created the universe and the Bible is his inspired word. Therefore, from these two facts, it follows that he cannot exist, as I will show.

The Two Realms

The universe is his creation. Because he willed it into being, it must be a reflection of how he wanted a universe to be like. Therefore, all observations through science (which is merely using nature "against" itself to derive observations and conclusions) must be reflecting the inner-workings of what he set forth in motion.

The Bible is his word. Part of his will was to create beings that he could love. Because of the intricate complexity of love, these beings were given free will, which inevitably meant God would have to reach down and provide a way out of what we caused. Therefore, the Bible was intended to spread the Good News of who we are, what our purpose is and ultimately how much we are loved by the one that created us.

The Conclusions

These are the two realms that God willed. One is the physical world and the other is his word that we can read to make sense of this physical experience. Because God willed the physical world into being, it implies that what we observe must be what he intended the universe to be like. If God also willed the Bible into eventual existence, then again, it implies that he must love us and have that plan of salvation for us. If the second assumption is 100% true, then it means he cannot possibly deceive in any way, as that would ultimately reveal that he is mischievous and this love that he has for us could be a mere illusion. Therefore, he cannot be a deceiver which ultimately means no part of his will can be in apparent conflict.

The Problem

This leads us to the first couple of chapters of his word. It seems like there is an apparent contradiction between the universe he willed and the words he willed into the Bible. Given that when we take the universe he created and we yield results with it that are a cause of the laws of his universe, we can rest assured that the interpretation of the universe is exactly what he willed. This means that the universe really is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. What does that mean for the words he willed into existence? Well, because no part of him can be contradicting his own will, it must mean that the interpretation of Genesis has to be allegorical. This implies Adam & Eve weren't literal beings which then means we didn't descend from them.

Dominoes.

This is where the problem begins, as the entire Bible gets knocked down like dominoes from literal history to allegorical interpretation. The 4 000 or so year family tree leading up to Jesus is supposed to be an unbroken series of relatives, but we have just shown that through God's will there was no first couple to start this off. More to the point, Original Sin never physically occurred so what does it actually mean for Jesus to be redeeming us of something that entered the world "through one man"?. Well, whatever Jesus is saving us from, it definitely isn't Original Sin. So, why then does Jesus, i.e. God, say that's exactly what he's doing?

Do-mi-NOES.

God is not a deceiver. From one extremity of his will to another, there cannot be any contradictions. But we have himself telling us through Jesus that he is here to save us from Original Sin. But we logically showed that from the universe he willed it follows that his intention wasn't to take the words he willed literally. Therefore, like Adam & Eve knocking the historicity of the Bible down from creation onwards, Jesus the Christ knocks down God's apparent and logical will in reverse. Jesus' own words makes it seem like God's written word must actually be taken literally.



It seems like God is at war with his own will which to us looks like God is deceiving somewhere along the line. The only way to avoid this is if he willed his own non-existence i.e. there was no Judeo-Christian god in the beginning who willed things contradictory to his own will. More probable though, is that we're dealing with nothing more than Bronze Age superstition.

---

Now you should know better than take the scriptures and use them in unfounded ways, the Christians here are going to and in this case did call you out. First God willed into existence the materials the universe is made of, note the word made. Go back and read the creation account and you will discover God made all we see, God pleased Himself in His work of art.

Right, so where's the problem exactly? God made everything because he wanted to please himself i.e. it was in his will. I don't see the problem here with what I've said in the OP.

Quote:Where in scripture does it say God at times does not deceive, I've explained this to you before, or at least I believe it was you. You want to make God deceitful to fit your weak little idea, you missed the mark.

And why exactly does God want to sell the lie to us? Such a beast isn't worthy of being labelled "God".

Quote:Jesus did not come to vanquish an sin other than the ones we each commit, no one is held responsible for another's sin.

Oh really?

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

So A&E have absolutely nothing to do with what Jesus did on the cross? That's laughable.

Quote:The idea of the age of the universe has come into some scientific troubles, the red shift used to determine distance is being re-examined and very well could be faulty.

Evolution is what matters here, because that ultimately means that God's will was for us to take his willed words allegorically.

In the OP I was simply giving examples of what would be true. I really should have clarified that, but instead it came out wrong.

---

(November 1, 2012 at 4:25 am)Daniel Wrote:

(October 31, 2012 at 11:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote: This is an extension of another thread that I started. I've fully fleshed out the idea and came to a definite conclusion using God himself.

While you make a logical argument, anyone can disprove something if they're allowed to apply the rules of its components to its whole, and that remains the flaw in your argument. If I could prove that there is something in the Bible that is without a doubt an iron clad guarantee of divine working, would that prove to you that the whole of the Bible is true, or would you put it down to coincidence maybe?

I've taken the fundamentals of Christianity and shown why such a divine being can't possibly exist.

1) God created the universe
2) His universe reveals that evolution is true
3) His will must be for us to take Genesis allegorically
4) Original Sin never happened
5) The people leading up to Jesus are allegorical
6) Jesus, i.e. God, claims to be saving us from Original Sin
-----------------
C) God is at war with his own wills. It's a fight between allegory and literal history. Therefore the logical explanation is that the Bible is the words of men who didn't know any better i.e. the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.

Quote:If you want to critisize something, you must do it on the merits of what it is. For instance, if it's political you do it politically, if it's science, you approach it scientifically.

So for a document such as the Bible, which makes bold claims on every aspect you can possibly think of, what do we do?

---

(November 1, 2012 at 5:31 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:

(October 31, 2012 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: That basically brings us back to square one; what is this Original Sin that Jesus is saving us from?

Well, if it's purely allegorical we don't have to know what it is, you still haven't proved that it doesn't exist. If it's allegorical then, it could refer to a number of logically possible things.

So a divine being has gone through all this work just to leave the question open-ended? In all honesty, it just sounds like the words of men if that's the case. They've written these things down and now in our modern times we've furthered what they said through scientific observations to arrive at the conclusion you've stated here. In other words they might as well have admitted "we know crap all, but the future generations will grab this and special-plead ad infinitum to shoehorn God into the world."

I agree that your response could work, but what are we actually being saved from? The theology just sounds trivial then, because you can invent a handful of things to explain why Jesus had to die on the cross. See what I mean? It just sounds like we're dealing with Bronze Age superstition, not an intelligent being with a plan.

Quote:

Quote:Works in mysterious ways that are synonomous to his non-existence.

Works in mysterious ways that are indistinguishable to his non-existence, rather. It's not synonymous because it isn't a similar meaning - a "God that works in mysterious ways" is still a God.

Ah, yes, that's what I meant to say. Thanks for the correction.

Quote: It has a completely different meaning because it still implies that there was at least a "God" that created the universe and some other parts may be literal such as Jesus being himself incarnate. You can't disprove those parts if the rest is allegory. We can't tell the difference - but that's the whole point of the Christian God anyway - he's completely undetectable. He's invisible, intangible, etc, so how have you proved that he doesn't exist if the only literal parts are that God created the universe and Jesus is himself incarnate?

I haven't really agreed that Jesus was literal, because again, what is he actually dying for? The entire point to Christianity is that we mucked up in the garden and now Jesus has provided a way out. If there was no garden, then we never mucked up. The story doesn't add up.

Quote:

Quote:That apologetic line is evasive and a cop out.

I agree that there are many cop-outs, but that just proves that there's no evidence for God, it doesn't prove that he doesn't exist if the interpretation of his existence is the almost entirely allegorical case I described above.

I don't see how God's two wills can be reconcilled though.

Quote:

Quote:Sure, the "sloppiness" is subjective, but it nontheless shows God isn't all-powerful and couldn't will his word how he wanted to.

You haven't demonstrated that he isn't "all powerful" if he merely "works in mysterious ways".

[/quote]

I refuse to believe this "mysterious ways" thing. He supposedly left behind his word that tells us about him. It's just a cop out, moving the goal posts and special pleading to explain how he really can still exist.

---

(November 1, 2012 at 8:09 am)John V Wrote:

(October 31, 2012 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Am I reading what I think I'm reading?

Yes, and seemingly for the first time.

Quote:It's almost implied here that God is apathetic towards those that choose darkness, but on top of that he approves of it by selling that lie to us himself???

As noted, it’s judgment, not apathy or approval.

Quote:
True, humans are good at self-deception, with over 3 000+ gods ever imagined I'd say you've got a point.

Can you be more specific as to where we are deceiving ourselves? Is it through using God's willed universe to learn about God's willed universe or do we have God's willed word all wrong? Given what I said in the OP, I'd say the latter.

I’d say we’re deceiving ourselves with our origins models, but the main point is that your conclusion/premise that “we can rest assured that the interpretation of the universe is exactly what he willed. This means that the universe really is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old” is unsupported.

I'm going to clarify that I didn't mean to put so much weight on the age of stuff. Evolution is actually what knocks the dominoes over for the Bible.

Quote:

Quote:
If you're suggesting that Satan deceives through the physical world, then I have to conclude God isn't all-powerful or isn't all-knowing.

No you don’t. This is another false dichotomy. You could also conclude that God allows Satan to attempt to deceive us for God’s own purposes. We don’t know all of God’s dealings with the angels.

This is all white noise to me. We might as well be discussing who wins in a fight between the Hulk and Superman.

Quote:BTW, I’m not suggesting that Satan actually tampers with physical evidence. The deception is in the interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves. Creationists generally agree with evolutionists on objective measurements.

Creationists agree with evolutionists?? Oh really?

(November 1, 2012 at 9:53 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I should have clarified in the OP that it's a range of things that would be scientifically true, not just the age of the earth. I guess for A&E, evolution is the big one.

This is something we have already discussed at length. For the account in Genesis only ever gives an account of the major events that happen in the Garden. And, Because their isn't a time line assoceiated with how long Adam and Even spent in the garden, evolution could have taken it's natural course outside the borders of said garden.

Quote:Jeewiz. So Biblical Theism has no answers for how the universe formed? Drich... c'mon Biblical Theism is very good for goalpost-moving, but to say Genesis doesn't tell you how God created the universe is the most laughable thing I've ever heard.

We have a detailed account of how the earth was created and how long it took. The bible does not go into the rest of the universe. It simply says In the begining God created the Heavens and the earth... "Heavens" being the rest of the universe, but we do not know how long "In the begining" actually was.

Quote:God had to rely on unnatural means, i.e. bestiality, to produce the first true humans after creation. That's what you're proposing.

I have no idea what you are saying.

Quote:a) Such a bizzare mix of genes would leave behind traces of A&E DNA being injected into the natural course of evolution. Not surprisingly, it's only you that claims such a thing. Fossil records don't indicate that "external" genes were mixed in with the "monkey men" already existing. Otherwise the theory of evolution would naturally involve the observations that might make your unique claims true.

Again in my theory God simply created man to reflect the point of the evolutionary process He would have known monkey man to be at to coinside with the fall. So Man made in the image of God would be genetically compatiable, and would have breeding stock to fill the earth with. Meaning the only difference between man decended from monkies and Man Made in the Image of God is that MMitIoG has a soul. Otherwise they are geneticly equal/compatiable.

Quote:b) Bestiality doesn't produce proper life with a chance to live. It's two different species for God's sake!

Genus and species observe classify physical characteristics. In this theory it is possiable for MMitIoG to be identical with Monkey man/Man without a soul, thus being classified under the same geneus and species. Again because genetically they are identical.

---

(November 1, 2012 at 10:37 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 31, 2012 at 11:52 pm)Drich Wrote: Would you perfer the Hebrew in Gen 1:16
עשה `asah
means Made; as in to appoint.

On the 4th day God appointed or made the sun to rule the Day and the moon to rule the night.

I see you're flirting with the idea that the creation narrative isn't actually speaking about the creation of these things itself..which would not be reconciling the narrative with reality, simply divorcing the narrative from those uncomfortably ignorant bits...as I said..no means of reconciliation is possible. Please, tell me more about how the creation narrative has nothing to do with creation.......then I won't have to explain to any passing dolts that there is no genesis in genesis.

All I am saying is the creation account is not a scientific account. So to take fundamentaly scientific principle and apply it the creation account in the way you have attempted to do so is a flawed line of reasoning. Primarily because you are not comparing your principle against what the bible actually says. Your comparing your principle against a very specific appologetic. one that is accepted by most, but never the less is still flawed and does not completely or accuratly reflect what is actually written. Fore what is written has many silent or dark spots when compared to the scientific record. Instead of remaining silent the appologetic attemps to 'fill in' and give an answer where one was simply never implied.

All I have ever done is made you all aware of the silent areas and even atempted to 'plug in' your best 'scientific' theories and have shown (in many cases) that it is possiable for both to have happened to some degree or another.

(October 31, 2012 at 11:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote: The universe is his creation. Because he willed it into being, it must be a reflection of how he wanted a universe to be like.

I've never understood this common assumption. Why do we assume that the God of the bible could whip up anything anything He wants any way He wants it. This pulling the universe out of your ass work may be harder than it looks. All the omni-attributes God is assumed to have - where does that come from? Would a goatherd's estimate of a God's power really be so reliable? What the hell is his frame of reference?

The problem with this and any other proof is no one really knows shit about 'God'. Nada.

Drich Wrote:This is something we have already discussed at length. For the account in Genesis only ever gives an account of the major events that happen in the Garden. And, Because their isn't a time line assoceiated with how long Adam and Even spent in the garden, evolution could have taken it's natural course outside the borders of said garden.

Let's dance.

Quote:Again in my theory God simply created man to reflect the point of the evolutionary process He would have known monkey man to be at to coinside with the fall. So Man made in the image of God would be genetically compatiable, and would have breeding stock to fill the earth with. Meaning the only difference between man decended from monkies and Man Made in the Image of God is that MMitIoG has a soul. Otherwise they are geneticly equal/compatiable.

"God" is colletively an alien race who came down to Earth. One of them drank a substance that dissolved him into the basic components needed for life as he fell into a waterfall, thus populating the Earth over time and thus making "man in God's image". They sent one of their own to check up on the experiment by the name of Jesus, who said "I and the 'Father' are one", because clearly he's from the same race as "God".

Why are your baseless assumptions correct over my baseless assumptions?

I regard reality no different than an error, an anomaly in the void. A mistake that's trying to correct itself via entropy and return back to an equilibrium of sorts, where the universe suffers heat death and is the closest it can get going back to the nothingness that it once was.

All this talk of "my interpretation of god or gods" is meaningless drivel. It just sails right over and pass me.

(November 1, 2012 at 11:30 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(October 31, 2012 at 11:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote: The universe is his creation. Because he willed it into being, it must be a reflection of how he wanted a universe to be like.

I've never understood this common assumption. Why do we assume that the God of the bible could whip up anything anything He wants any way He wants it. This pulling the universe out of your ass work may be harder than it looks. All the omni-attributes God is assumed to have - where does that come from? Would a goatherd's estimate of a God's power really be so reliable? What the hell is his frame of reference?

The problem with this and any other proof is no one really knows shit about 'God'. Nada.

I completely agree. To construct my argument though, I was forced to assume that a divine being exists, that it created a universe it actually cared about, that it created other heavenly beings which he knew would possibly rebel i.e. Satan, that he created a garden where his first creations were deceived by the thing he knew would decieve his creations, that these beings would produce 3 000+ other gods, that Satan conveniently set up these 3 000+ other gods to make it harder to find the true god, that Jesus is 100% original despite all this, that he came to redeem us from what he started and that people in a superstitious world actually were recording the One Truth, which can be found in the Bible. Only then can I say that God's two wills make it seem like he decided to will his own non-existence in the first place.

Meeting theists halfway really drains you intellectually. So many hoops to jump through!