To all the Christian evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists

[MobBoss]

It's a reasonable conclusion given the fact that there's so many different religious documents of similar type and it's unverifiable nature.

Here's how I see it:
A. We abandon science for new concept based on anecdotal evidence
B. We dismiss anecdotal evidence as incorrect

B is obviously the logical choice.

Perfection, have you ever considered that God may be so all-encompassing and powerful enough to include scientific finding as well as anything else?

Personally, I think people that say science disproves god have no real concept of how all-powerful he really is supposed to be.

 

[El_Machinae]

MobBoss: you accuse me of dealing in absolutes? Isn't your God an absolute? If you can't define your God using absolutes, then it's just a relativist argument. In your opinion, the existence of God is a yes/no fact, no maybes. Ergo, the use of absolutes is justifiable.

Perfection: you're such a dogmatic. The story of the parting of the Red Sea is purportedly written by Moses - hence, an autobiography. And the 'peer review' process isn't other scientists doing the tests, it's other scientists judging whether the purported test were actually done. People have faked peer review papers. The cleverness of the Bible is that you can't show one way or another that it's reliable.

It's all faith.

 

[El_Machinae]

MobBoss: you disagree with this statement?

To use pain, when a non-pain method was available, is evil.

Though I'll include the caveat: "All things being equal, to use pain ..."

 

[Perfection]

C We hold that science is merely the consistencies set by a higher power that have been and could be wavered at any given time.

So in other words at that point we abandon science. Which seems goofy and unfounded for anecdotal evidence.

 

[El_Machinae]

Perfection: the pursuit of science is to understand the world better (and IMHO, to improve our condition in the world). There's no need to abandon science if one has religion. Well, not in my view anyway. I guess some types of religion advocate against progress. But whether or not you believe the parting of the Red Sea occured does not affect your ability to create hypotheses and test them, a well-formed hypothesis is based off of observation and observation alone.

 

[Perfection]

Perfection, have you ever considered that God may be so all-encompassing and powerful enough to include scientific finding as well as anything else?

It's certainly logically possible, but that doesn't mean I should give it any credence. Ability for a model (theory) to explain and predict empirical data is of foremost importance. God does not do that.

Personally, I think people that say science disproves god have no real concept of how all-powerful he really is supposed to be.

You're still not seeing my point. My point is not that god is logically impossible or anything, it's that the evidence of god is so teneous that we can disregard the possibility of it existing.

 

[Perfection]

Perfection: you're such a dogmatic.

How so?

The story of the parting of the Red Sea is purportedly written by Moses - hence, an autobiography.

I suppose you could make that arguement. Still, that doesn't make it accurate.

And the 'peer review' process isn't other scientists doing the tests, it's other scientists judging whether the purported test were actually done.

Actually it's both and more.

People have faked peer review papers.

It's rather rare, and usually they are caught. I don't give 100% credence to these articles, but it's clear that they have value and are often correct.

The cleverness of the Bible is that you can't show one way or another that it's reliable.

Except of course, when it makes statements that make little scientific sense...

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss: you accuse me of dealing in absolutes? Isn't your God an absolute?

When you make a statement like "Is your God so limited that he cannot teach humans, except by including pain? Wow Yes, you deal in the absolute that you allege, when if you know anything of christianity at all, you know that is a false statement. God is absolute in his power and his ways are a mystery to man.

If you can't define your God using absolutes, then it's just a relativist argument. In your opinion, the existence of God is a yes/no fact, no maybes. Ergo, the use of absolutes is justifiable.

Ergo, its not. Its way more than a simple yes/no question. In asking the question that you do, the yes/no question is already answered.......your question is "why". I humbly sumbit that you dont have the capacity to understand what the answer would encompass.

MobBoss: you disagree with this statement? To use pain, when a non-pain method was available, is evil.

The question in itself is too limited in how it is phrased. Do I think that people who use electrified fences to keep cattle from roaming, as opposed to a wooden fence, evil? No. Is electro-shock treatment evil when compared to medication? Not necessarily. Do I think a parent evil for spanking their child instead of putting them in a corner? Definitly not.

 

[El_Machinae]

God is absolute in his power and his ways are a mystery to man.

So, how do I tell your God from one who orders his faithful to blow up a bus? You both:
-avow that parts of the Bible are 100% true, and you have some 'special insight' into which parts are to be followed, and which aren't. The non-believer, of course, can't predict what you'll do by looking at the Bible, they have to ask you.
-claim that God's morality is not discernable by me, but you have some 'special insight', and I don't have the knowledge of good and evil, though apparently I can (not may, can) judge other men's morality competantly
-have similar fMRI activity when thinking about God.
-give permission to God to hurt people, and say it's okay
-trust a book that was written by men (moses, paul, etc.), edited by men (Council of Nicaea ), interpreted by men (King James), and published by men (Penguin?).

Perfection:

How so?

because you insist that your senses and logic are sufficient resources to deliver truth to you, when any confidence in your senses is actually based on faith. You judge your 'standard of evidence' as superior to Christians. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you're operating on faith as well.

MobBoss: let me rephrase my question:
"All things being equal, is it evil to use pain to instruct a human, when you can instruct that human without pain".

"All things being equal" includes speed of teaching and ease of teaching
"Instruct a human" means to teach them something you want them to learn, or to teach them to avoid bad behaviour.

 

[MobBoss]

It's certainly logically possible, but that doesn't mean I should give it any credence. Ability for a model (theory) to explain and predict empirical data is of foremost importance. God does not do that.

And why should he have to? He gave us free choice and a brain to do what we want with it. However, I humbly submit that there are problems out there that remain unanswered and we may never know all the answers. Until the day that we do, my faith is sufficient to cover me in the things I cant answer.

You're still not seeing my point. My point is not that god is logically impossible or anything, it's that the evidence of god is so teneous that we can disregard the possibility of it existing.

And yet, we discover new things every day. Until recently no one had ever seen a live giant squid. Some dead flesh would wash up every now and then, and then people would even argue over that sometimes. Was there reason to disregard its existance simply because no one had ever seen one alive? Recently there was a medical study that actually gave proof that prayer actually helps heal people. Not meditation, not quiet time, but prayer. Its still "under study", but there are times I personally think, if someone looks hard enough, they can find a bit more than just "teneous" evidence.

 

[El_Machinae]

it's that the evidence of god is so teneous that we can disregard the possibility of it existing.

That's where I stand as well, actually, except I believe that the logic of every 'God' that's been described to me doesn't meet my logical standards of being internally consistent.

There can never be evidence that God does or does not exist, because any evidence can be mimicked through brain damage or technology.

 

[MobBoss]

So, how do I tell your God from one who orders his faithful to blow up a bus?

Simple. By having a personal relationship with him and a basic understanding of his ways. Quite simply, Jesus wouldnt approve of someone blowing up a bus full of innocents. And I would further say that any "christian" who thinks killing innocents is ok is deceived.

MobBoss: let me rephrase my question:
"All things being equal, is it evil to use pain to instruct a human, when you can instruct that human without pain".

I dont think that is unreasonable. If putting my kid in the corner would actually work, However, two things. One, I think the word evil is too strong a word to use in the phrase. Two, we are both limited in how we perceive good and evil in the framework of the question. Being human, we assign human attributes to what we think is good or evil. God may do things which appear evil to us, and in our lack of understanding simply label it as evil, but are actually for our better good. Remember, this isnt the matrix where he just downloads a program into our head, he has given us freedom of choice.

 

[El_Machinae]

MobBoss: I'm not satisfied. Give me a better way of distinguishing you from a Christian who wants to blow up a bus. I already have a personal relationship with Jesus - I deny that he is a God worth worshiping. I still can't tell you apart.

Jesus wouldnt approve of someone blowing up a bus full of innocents.

That's wrong, or we're thinking of two different Jesuses. The fact is that he either a) Does approve or b) can't stop it. Allowing something to occur is tacit approval or a lack of courage.
- I don't let my son touch the stove to "teach him it's hot". And you know what, I didn't need for him to get hit by a car to teach him to beware of traffic. If I let him touch the stove without trying to explain it to him first, I would be a bad parent.

PS: in answering my 'causing pain is evil' question ... you didn't. "Is causing suffering, when you don't have to, wrong"?

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss: I'm not satisfied. Give me a better way of distinguishing you from a Christian who wants to blow up a bus.

Uh...ok..I will be the guy not in a trenchcoat and I wont have a bomb.

I mean really what more do you need? Its not like there are hoards of murderous christians out there blowing up buses unlike some folks.

I already have a personal relationship with Jesus - I deny that he is a God worth worshiping. I still can't tell you apart.

Uhm.......thats not a personal relationship. All that means is that your for the other guy.

That's wrong, or we're thinking of two different Jesuses.

Oh? How is it wrong?

The fact is that he either a) Does approve or b) can't stop it. Allowing something to occur is tacit approval or a lack of courage.

Very, very flawed thinking. You see there is this thing called freedom of choice. The guy that blows the bus up makes a choice for evil....the person that doesnt makes a choice for good. Its evident that Jesus wants you to make the choice for good and not evil. If he didnt allow it to happen he would take away our freedom of choice and thats not an option.

I don't let my son touch the stove to "teach him it's hot".

\

I didnt say you did........but sometimes kids do. I learned the hard way when I was a kid that a clothes iron is hot...had one fall on my forearm and burned me. Needless to say, I didnt mess with one again.

And you know what, I didn't need for him to get hit by a car to teach him to beware of traffic. If I let him touch the stove without trying to explain it to him first, I would be a bad parent.

Its not always a matter of "letting them". Do you think you will be able to watch your kid 24/7 to keep him from doing stupid stuff? No. He is going to hurt himself in a wide variety of ways and each time he does he will learn from it.

in answering my 'causing pain is evil' question ... you didn't. "Is causing suffering, when you don't have to, wrong"?

[/QUOTE]

You want to deal in absolutes and your questions continue to have loopholes. Does a woman suffer during childbirth? Yes. Is it evil? No. Why do some women opt for a natural birth instead of a C-Section? Are they evil? No.

 

[bhsup]

I already have a personal relationship with Jesus - I deny that he is a God worth worshiping. I still can't tell you apart.

Actually, I'm with you on this one. Jesus isn't God at all, not even in the "trinity" sense (though I do believe in the trinity in that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit exist). If he were God, he would know the time of his return, which he states he doesn't know. If he were God, he would not have said not to worship him but to worship the father. He is our King, our Savior, our only path to God and redemption, but he is not God.

In this sense, I realize I break with much of protestant Christianity, even though that is precisely what I consider myself.

 

[Perfection]

And why should he have to? He gave us free choice and a brain to do what we want with it. However, I humbly submit that there are problems out there that remain unanswered and we may never know all the answers. Until the day that we do, my faith is sufficient to cover me in the things I cant answer.

It's not that god has the moral obligation to, it's that I, who base my positive beliefs on observed evidence, find the observed evidence of god is so flawed and lacking I blieve it is most logical to dismiss it as wishful thinking.

And yet, we discover new things every day.

How many were predicted by unevidenced speculation

Until recently no one had ever seen a live giant squid. Some dead flesh would wash up every now and then, and then people would even argue over that sometimes. Was there reason to disregard its existance simply because no one had ever seen one alive?

Absolutly not, there was a huge squid corpse! That's physical evidence! If you find me god's corpse (and something that is clearly god's corpse, not something that looks like a drunk found strangled back behind a titty bar) I'll let that comparison slide.

Recently there was a medical study that actually gave proof that prayer actually helps heal people. Not meditation, not quiet time, but prayer.

What study are you talking about? In the few studies I've seen it had fairly obvious causes that weren't indicative of god's existance. I'd have to see which one you were refering to to tell you what flaw there was.

Its still "under study", but there are times I personally think, if someone looks hard enough, they can find a bit more than just "teneous" evidence.

Indeed, they look so hard that they betray thier natural skepticism and provide themselves with false proofs.

 

[El_Machinae]

All that means is that your for the other guy.

Reason to believe that 'the other guy' exists is even more weak than belief in the God of the Bible.

The guy that blows the bus up makes a choice for evil

You don't need the suffering of innocents to have freedom of choice, according to the Bible. Adam and Eve were able to rebel without creating any victims (until they had children). Therefore, my position is that allowing the children to be burned in a bus is a positive act of approval or cowardice.

I didnt say you did........but sometimes kids do.

My point was that you don't NEED to use pain to teach, unless there isn't an ability to communicate and rationalize.

You want to deal in absolutes and your questions continue to have loopholes. Does a woman suffer during childbirth? Yes. Is it evil? No. Why do some women opt for a natural birth instead of a C-Section? Are they evil?

Your only loophole is to bring in self-inflicted suffering? The C-Section vs. Natural choice is because the woman (or doctor) believes that one is a superior choice for the parties involved. It is an attempt to reduce suffering. My (very specific) question was with to regards to suffering that wasn't necessary.

 

[MobBoss]

Reason to believe that 'the other guy' exists is even more weak than belief in the God of the Bible.

Heh, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people that he doesnt exist at all.

You don't need the suffering of innocents to have freedom of choice, according to the Bible. Adam and Eve were able to rebel without creating any victims (until they had children). Therefore, my position is that allowing the children to be burned in a bus is a positive act of approval or cowardice.

Sorry you dont seem to get it. Its not an issue of tacit approval or cowardice.....you have freedom of choice and god wont interfere with that. Ah, but would have Adam and Eve eaten from the fruit if the serpent had not victimized them? They were misled and that in turn resulted in their downfall. Just like today when people are misled and deceived, they can cause much harm and violence.

Your only loophole is to bring in self-inflicted suffering?

No, its just the first one to come to mind. You think I sit around all day thinking of loopholes for this arguement?

It is an attempt to reduce suffering. My (very specific) question was with to regards to suffering that wasn't necessary.

You missed my point entirely. With todays medicine, there is no real reason for each and every woman to ease their suffering during childbirth by just getting a C-Section. The procedure basically means that women dont need to suffer needlessly during childbirth, however, that is not how the procedure is done in practice. Natural childbirth, with all its suffering and risks, is still pretty much the norm of how people are born today. By your definition, you would call that practice evil. I disagree.

 

[El_Machinae]

Would have Adam and Eve eaten from the fruit if the serpent had not victimized them? Just like today when people are misled and deceived, they can cause much harm and violence.

Sigh. Who tricked the Devil, then? No one, purportedly. And his freedom of choice did not require the suffering of innocents. Rebelling against God cannot be a function of intelligence, therefore, there must be some other reason why humans require temptation to become evil, and he did not.

As well, if stopping a bomber is removing freedom of choice, and God is apparently all about freedom of choice, why do you feel beholden to stop the bomber? Why do you feel beholden to stop a person committing suicide? In fact, what's your motivation for exerting any effort to stop a sin (or the suffering of innocents), since stopping the sin clearly removes freedom of choice. Why are you willing to perfom actions that God is not willing to perform?

Finally, the mother undergoes self-inflicted suffering because she believes it's for the best. Is causing suffering, when there was no reason, evil?

 

[Birdjaguar]

As well, if stopping a bomber is removing freedom of choice, and God is apparently all about freedom of choice, why do you feel beholden to stop the bomber? Why do you feel beholden to stop a person committing suicide? In fact, what's your motivation for exerting any effort to stop a sin (or the suffering of innocents), since stopping the sin clearly removes freedom of choice. Why are you willing to perfom actions that God is not willing to perform?

Nice point. If the world is perfect for the christian god's purposes, who are we to change it?