Converting

[The Valkyrie]

How convenient.

Millions of years of human ancestry and evolution are ignored because they don't fit the "religious narrative".

What millions of years are you referring to..? Modern humans appeared -supposedly- some hundreds of thousands of years ago. And it's not like apes were supposed to receive guidance too. 

You KNOW the truth.  You KNOW the facts.

But you ignore them because they don't fit your agenda.

But the religious will just choose to ignore them anyway.  And make excuses...

I would call evolution some absolute truth if things like The piltdown man and such didn't happen. Why would anyone waste his time building a sophisticated hoax to support the *fact* of evolution? Anyway, the latter word encompasses lots of things now. I don't deny that we adapt to our environments, though. But life beginning because of random chemical reactions in some rock.. not so much.

---

First off, I reject your premise that god is just.

I already know you reject god altogether, what kind of an answer is that?

My question was, suppose a just god exists, Does that imply guidance ? It's a simple yes/no, pal.

MODERN man appeared several hundred thousand years ago, though there is evidence appearing almost yearly that pushes our age back further.

But we did come from earlier ancestors, all of whom fall within the term human.

Piltdown man. A proverbial favourite of the creationists. Publushed in a non-peer reviewed journal an finally outed by scientists.

Why are you conflating abiogenesis with evolution?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How convenient.

Millions of years of human ancestry and evolution are ignored because they don't fit the "religious narrative".

What millions of years are you referring to..? Modern humans appeared -supposedly- some hundreds of thousands of years ago. And it's not like apes were supposed to receive guidance too. 

You KNOW the truth.  You KNOW the facts.

But you ignore them because they don't fit your agenda.

But the religious will just choose to ignore them anyway.  And make excuses...

I would call evolution some absolute truth if things like The piltdown man and such didn't happen. Why would anyone waste his time building a sophisticated hoax to support the *fact* of evolution? Anyway, the latter word encompasses lots of things now. I don't deny that we adapt to our environments, though. But life beginning because of random chemical reactions in some rock.. not so much.

---

First off, I reject your premise that god is just.

I already know you reject god altogether, what kind of an answer is that?

My question was, suppose a just god exists, Does that imply guidance ? It's a simple yes/no, pal.

Then, no. A god being just does not imply that that god would necessarily guide its creations.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

MODERN man appeared several hundred thousand years ago, though there is evidence appearing almost yearly that pushes our age back further.

And if that's the case, what makes you certain the religious narrative definitely contradicts what we know so far.

Piltdown man.  A proverbial favourite of the creationists.  Publushed in a non-peer reviewed journal an finally outed by scientists.

Why are you conflating abiogenesis with evolution?

The point is, the hoax happened because someone needed to support shaky claims. I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, nor that there is other evidence supporting its claims. But I wouldn't call it a fact.

Why are you conflating abiogenesis with evolution?

Isn't that what you think happened though? If there is no divine intervention, surely life came spontaneously thanks to some crazy chemical coincidence

---

Then, no. A god being just does not imply that that god would necessarily guide its creations.

Boru

Whut.? In what sense a god can be called just, then.. If its creatures have no clue of what they're doing on earth .?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

---

Then, no. A god being just does not imply that that god would necessarily guide its creations.

Boru

Whut.? In what sense a god can be called just, then.. If its creatures have no clue of what they're doing on earth .?

In the most basic, human sense. An apt analogy is the old saw ‘ignorance of the law is not a defense’, but a man who robs a bank can truthfully claim that he didn’t know act was illegal, but be still subject to the just punishment of the law.

A god who provides guidance to its creatures isn’t just, but merciful. And ‘justice’ and ‘mercy’ are mutually exclusive qualities. If you were to argue that it is a merciful god who provides guidance, you’d have a much stronger case.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

In the most basic, human sense.

Huh. You're anthropomorphising god, then.

An apt analogy is the old saw ‘ignorance of the law is not a defense’, but a man who robs a bank can claim the he didn’t know act was illegal is still subject the just punishment of the law.

You still need a law to say this. The absence of law does imply the absence of justice. Isn't it some definition of justice... to enforce law.?

A god who provides guidance to its creatures isn’t just, but merciful. And ‘justice’ and ‘mercy’ are mutually exclusive qualities. If you were to argue that it is a merciful god who provides guidance, you’d have a much stronger case.

Merciful means slighter punishment, forgiving whoever deserves forgiveness, etc. not the absence of guidance/law.

And I'm waiting for your case against a just+merciful god, aside from claims.

[The Valkyrie]

MODERN man appeared several hundred thousand years ago, though there is evidence appearing almost yearly that pushes our age back further.

And if that's the case, what makes you certain the religious narrative definitely contradicts what we know so far.

Piltdown man.  A proverbial favourite of the creationists.  Publushed in a non-peer reviewed journal an finally outed by scientists.

Why are you conflating abiogenesis with evolution?

The point is, the hoax happened because someone needed to support shaky claims. I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, nor that there is other evidence supporting its claims. But I wouldn't call it a fact.

Why are you conflating abiogenesis with evolution?

Isn't that what you think happened though? If there is no divine intervention, surely life came spontaneously thanks to some crazy chemical coincidence

---

Then, no. A god being just does not imply that that god would necessarily guide its creations.

Boru

Whut.? In what sense a god can be called just, then.. If its creatures have no clue of what they're doing on earth .?

The religious narrative begins thiusands of years ago, not millions. And many within religious circles seem convinced the world us around 6;000 years old.

While I accept that there may gave been Ug the Volcano God in the murky depths of ourcancestry, the "modern" religions usually seem comfortable ignoring the older history.


I also accept that an occasional scientist has perpetuated a hoax or rushed to published findings instead of waiting for those findings to be reviewed.

Of course, there are those in the relugious workd who have done the same. The almost yearly "discovery" of Noah's Ark seems a good example. But I can find more if pressed.

The point being, emphasising such actions within one group while ignoring them in your own isn't good. (And no, I'm not accusing you of such an omission).

Finally, I don't believe in evolution. I accept it. Just as I reject any supernatural involvement.

While I also accept abiogenesis, it's not the only theiry on the origins of life. We also have panspermua along with others I can't think of right now.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In the most basic, human sense.

Huh. You're anthropomorphising god, then.

An apt analogy is the old saw ‘ignorance of the law is not a defense’, but a man who robs a bank can claim the he didn’t know act was illegal is still subject the just punishment of the law.

You still need a law to say this. The absence of law does imply the absence of justice. Isn't it some definition of justice... to enforce law.?

A god who provides guidance to its creatures isn’t just, but merciful. And ‘justice’ and ‘mercy’ are mutually exclusive qualities. If you were to argue that it is a merciful god who provides guidance, you’d have a much stronger case.

Merciful means slighter punishment, forgiving whoever deserves forgiveness, etc. not the absence of guidance/law.

And I'm waiting for your case against a just+merciful god, aside from claims.

1. So are you. You are imparting an exclusively human concern (‘justice’) to god.

2. No one’s talking about the absence of law. If you want to claim that divine law exists, go right ahead. But ignorance or awareness of that law is immaterial to the concept of justice. 

3. Suppose a god decrees that the punishment for my sins is that I go to hell. As I’m a particularly unrepentant and enthusiastic sinner, it would be justice for me to go to hell. But if god forgives me, it has been merciful, not just.

Boru

[ignoramus]

I remember Klor now ...
I'm out.

[Paleophyte]

Just like the billions of humans and human ancestors who existed before the Abrahamic god appeared a few thousand years ago?

The religious narrative considers the fall of man to be the first event ever in human history, thus the first man and woman did know God. But of course, atheists can simply deny the occurence.

Your mythology is showing.

The problem that Theistic Evolution is incapable of overcoming is that "modern humans" didn't spring into existence at some sharply defined point in time. Every individual was descended from ancestors that were very nearly indistinguishable from their progeny. Only tiny changes occur from one generation to the next. That's how evolution works. The "modern human" was born of parents that we so-very-nearly-modern humans as to be indistinguishable. Science has no problem with these shades of grey but TE requires a sharp division that simply isn't present. God has to draw a line and say "Screw everybody who came before this. They just didn't make the cut. Because I haven't evolved them enough yet."

[R00tKiT]

The religious narrative begins thiusands of years ago, not millions.  And many within religious circles seem convinced the world us around 6;000 years old.

That's only true for the Christian case. What about other religions you ruled out because of some supposed contradictions?

I also accept that an occasional scientist has perpetuated a hoax or rushed to published findings instead of waiting for those findings to be reviewed.

Of course, there are those in the relugious workd who have done the same.  The almost yearly "discovery" of Noah's Ark seems a good example.  But I can find more if pressed.

The point being, emphasising such actions within one group while ignoring them in your own isn't good. (And no, I'm not accusing you of such an omission).

The truth of the Abrahamic religions hardly depends on Noah's Ark being discovered somewhere, you know. And we're not the ones relying 100% on empirical data, we consider pure reasoning and studying historical figures/prophets a good way to reach truth too.

1. So are you. You are imparting an exclusively human concern (‘justice’) to god.

How do you know justice is exclusively a human concern, and not God's too? 

2. No one’s talking about the absence of law. If you want to claim that divine law exists, go right ahead. But ignorance or awareness of that law is immaterial to the concept of justice.

Justice always presupposes some law out there. If I give candies to a bunch of kids justly, that is, give each one of them an equal amount, I already suppose there is a law of some kind prohibiting unfair distribution.

3. Suppose a god decrees that the punishment for my sins is that I go to hell. As I’m a particularly unrepentant and enthusiastic sinner, it would be justice for me to go to hell. But if god forgives me, it has been merciful, not just.

You can only talk about justice in comparison to someone else. If you and some other person do the exact same things in this life, and then god decides to forgive you and punish the other person, here we can invoke unjustice. But if he forgives you both, he was merciful to you, but there is not enough data to say he was unjust.

So, mercy doesn't nullify justice. It's only the case if mercifulness itself is distributed unjustly.

---

Your mythology is showing.

The problem that Theistic Evolution is incapable of overcoming is that "modern humans" didn't spring into existence at some sharply defined point in time. Every individual was descended from ancestors that were very nearly indistinguishable from their progeny. Only tiny changes occur from one generation to the next. That's how evolution works. The "modern human" was born of parents that we so-very-nearly-modern humans as to be indistinguishable. Science has no problem with these shades of grey but TE requires a sharp division that simply isn't present. God has to draw a line and say "Screw everybody who came before this. They just didn't make the cut. Because I haven't evolved them enough yet."

First of all, it's not clear that the religious figure of Adam coincides with the first modern human.  As both the label "modern humans" and the exact epoch when Adam supposedly lived according to religions are not precisely determined. Second, if God picks modern humans to be the chosen creatures, where is exactly the problem in doing that? And what makes you think whoever came before modern humans didn't know God in some other way, or whether they needed any guidance at all if they lacked cognitive ability to receive it.