Atheists - A Question...

[Alien826]

Whether the illusion of free will is enough for you or not, is not really the question I think. Because I would agree that it is definitely up to debate whether we have true free will or not.
But that is not the argument made by religious people, we are talking about true free will, otherwise, God would obviously be lying and that is impossible given what is said.

And I don't see how that is possible if God knows what we do before we do it. Then our destiny must somehow have been decided, or at least God would have to be a non-intervening God, which would basically make him pointless as I see it.

You asked me to expand on my view of free will. I did. It's a huge subject and much debated. It gets more difficult when we get away from simple knowing and conclude that each "state" we experience is totally determined by the state that precedes it. In other words, with enough data and a powerful enough computer we could take the starting configuration of the universe and predict everything up to its eventual state of total entropy. That's been debunked I think, as there seems to be is an indeterminacy built into the universe.

But anyway, it's complicated!

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not even going to bother bringing those theories that have been challenged, but were held onto, despite strong evidence against them, only to later be proven false... during the time the scientific method was applied, because that would make no difference.
Your eyes wouldn't open even a thousandth of a fraction.
Nothing will budge die hard atheist from their religion - Scientism.

@Brian2 you were wondering about how "scientism" is used as an insult. Well, here's a good example.

 

[nPeace]

I understand what you are saying. But let me ask you, who figured out that those theories you are referring to were wrong and "correct" it, so you can now write what you are?

The scientists who were ignored had it figured out. They did not give up, and proved it.
At least they got the chance to proceed.
That's not often the case.
One scientist ended up in the mad house, before his theory was proven.

You keep saying science eventually works it out, or gets it right - corrects the error, but that's missing the point.
The point I am making, is that something is viewed / believed to be right, when it isn't.

Sure, we can all laugh at certain things, it also depends on the type of laugh. But people back then weren't arrogant about it, that was simply what they believed.

You have quite a lot of faith in people. It's as though you think scientists are Saints who don't have biases and personal interests.
I'm glad not all scientists and other people feel that way.

But what is the method used in religion for self-correcting? People have debated the holy trinity for I don't know how long, what method would you suggest to figure out whether it is true or not? Where does new evidence come from?

If there is evidence that the Bible is true, that's all we need.
If it's backed up and supported by external evidence, that a plus, but not a must.
So, if it can be demonstrated that the Bible is indeed accurate and reliable, both internally and externally, then this is how religious error is corrected. 2 Timothy 3:16

So there is a difference here, due to the applied method. As you know scientists are talking about dark matter and energy, because something is not adding up, yet they can't solve it. But rather than just going back and forth and stating opinions, they try to figure out ways to demonstrate whether it is true or not.

Okay.

Yes, but you get nowhere in science simply stating your opinion if you can't back it up with evidence. Sure, they will discuss/talk about whether the multiverse is the best explanation or not. But it will never become more than that unless they somehow can demonstrate it. Just as people can discuss whether Jesus was a prophet or the son of God. That is all fine, but how will you settle that?

Some are still opinions though.
Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions.

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.

It does, if God is good, can't make mistakes and is all-knowing, why would he create an imperfect system?

God did not create this system. You know what create means, I'm sure.
Why do you think God created this system. I'm just trying to understand how atheists think, since I heard the question asked by atheists more than once.

Such as children being born with weird diseases or whatever. If it's about people having sinned or whatever the big plan of God is, such a thing doesn't seem to add a whole lot to it.

You think sin is part of God's big plan? Why?
May I ask what religious organization you were taught in?

Yes, but doesn't the actual verse say that God regretted and was sorry? So why does it matter that he liked Noah when its that he is "sorry" and "regretted" something we are talking about? Shouldn't God have known this already?

Sorry and grieved, yes, but what exactly was God sorry and grieved about?
The verse say, "that he had made men on the earth", and that can be taken as it is stated. God was sorry, or regretted - grieved that he made men.
However, from reading the Bible, with a bit of help, of course, I don't go away with the thought that God wished he hadn't created man. Why?
Because I use the Bible overall, to explain or interpret what it says, and there is a difference between the two phrases.

Spoiler: What is, and what shaped my view

(Exodus 13:17) 17 And it came about at the time of Pharʹaoh’s sending the people away that God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Phi·lisʹtines just because it was near, for God said: “It might be the people will feel regret when they see war and will certainly return to Egypt.”

(Judges 2:18) 18 And when Jehovah did raise up judges for them, Jehovah proved to be with the judge, and he saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for Jehovah would feel regret over their groaning because of their oppressors and those who were shoving them around.

(Judges 21:15) 15 And the people felt regret over Benjamin because Jehovah had made a rupture between the tribes of Israel.

(2 Samuel 24:16) When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, Jehovah felt regret over the calamity, and he said to the angel bringing destruction among the people: “It is enough! Now let your hand drop.” Jehovah’s angel was close to the threshing floor of A·rauʹnah the Jebʹu·site.

(1 Chronicles 21:15) Moreover, the true God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but as he was about to do so, Jehovah saw it and felt regret over the calamity, and he said to the angel bringing destruction: “It is enough! Now let your hand drop.” Jehovah’s angel was standing close to the threshing floor of Orʹnan the Jebʹu·site.

(Ezekiel 24:14) 14 I myself, Jehovah, have spoken. It will come to pass. I will act without holding back, without sorrow, without regret. They will judge you according to your ways and your dealings,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah.”

One word in ancient Hebrew had several different meanings, to convey different thoughts.
So, regret - also meaning grieved - is used in these verses, showing God's strong feelings of grief or pain, over something, and since God did not think there was anything wrong with his creation (Genesis 1:31), but loved them enough to make a way out of the mess Adam created for the human family - sending his beloved son (Genesis 3:15), who expressed that he was fond of mankind (Proverbs 8:31), then I understand the verse to be basically saying that God was deeply grieved at the way man was made / became / turned out... Not created.

The scriptures say, God "made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth. . ." (Acts 17:26)
So through Adam, God made mankind.
As I mentioned to @Alien826, God took responsibility for allowing man to be in this state.

Since the creator wanted the best for his creation, it grieved him that they would suffer in the way that they would.
That, to me is admirable, for the reason that it demonstrates the magnitude of God's unfathomable love. His patience, and endurance, having to experience that for thousands of years (We only experience it for 10-80, or 90 years).
It highlights too, God's unswerving justice, in sticking to his standards of true righteousness - not abandoning his purpose... but then, for an all powerful being to abandon his stated purpose, and will, would only render him weak.
I see wisdom in what God has done.

I think though, this has to do with a number of factors. Humility, comes first, but then other qualities are added (Galatians 5:22). I believe this leads to understanding. (Matthew 13:10-16)

 

[nPeace]

Because I haven't heard of anyone having observed birds building tree houses. If you can show me that, I would be impressed, they built nests and they are also "designed" by the birds, they are not randomly built. Birds of the same species tend to build the same type of nests. Obviously not as advanced as we do, because they lack a lot of the abilities we have. But you wouldn't go past a bird's nest and think, that the wind just randomly made it look like that and they are all over the tree each year and a specific bird just happen to use them. And if you are doubtful, again you could examine them to figure out the truth and you would realize that they were built by an animal.

I don't understand the connection between birds building tree-houses, and design.
I guess you don't see how a bird can be designed, because of evolution.
I see design in things that demonstrate purpose. For example, I don't believe our central nervous system is a product of blind unguided processes.

I think there is a reason why all the body's systems are connected as they are.
To me, there is an intended goal for every function, and if we were to alter any one of those functioning parts away from the instructions they followed, we would have a surgeon leaning over our body, trying to get it right.
To me, that speaks design. There is specificity, instructions, an intended goal - purpose.

Apart from that, the Bible which has the strongest evidence supports the view that life was designed with a purpose
I think that for one to think that design only exists in objects of this sort...

One has to be a bit closed-minded.
That's how I see it.

Biomimicry demonstrates design in nature.
If there is no design in nature, then there is no design in mimicry.
However, all scientists should know this is not the case... unless they are in strong denial... imo.
Biomimicry is a practice that learns from and mimics the strategies found in nature to solve human design challenges

DESIGNERS CAN LOOK TO NATURE FOR IDEAS…
BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN (also known as bio-informed design, biomimetics and biomimicry) is an approach to design in which natural processes inform solutions to human problems

Learning from someone else's design. That's what it is. Too bad they can't come up with their own that's half as good. They have to resort to stealing.
Hmm. I wonder why nature's design is soooo good, and the most recent evolved life forms are so poor at design, they need to turn to things they evolved from.

Human design? Nature's design? God's design? Intelligent designers stealing design ideas, and claiming design does not require an intelligent designer. Lol

Yes, but I wouldn't compare that to what God is said to be able to do.

It's an example. Not a comparison, but it allows us to see that if it is humans can do it, then far more a supreme being, and far more advanced.

I'm having a problem understand what you are trying to convey though.
Please explain why you wouldn't compare that to what God is said to be able to do.

Just for clarification continuing from my last example.

If President A pushes the nuke button, does God know what President B is going to do before A uses his free will to do this?

If he wants to, he would, and since that is something that could affect his purpose, yes... as the Jamaican might say, "He dun know."
Yes, God already know what will not happen, where these world powers are concerned.
He has already prophesied what will be concerning kingdoms of this world... both in the book of Daniel and Revelation, but other prophets also gave some details.

You worried about Nukes Nimos?
Take comfort. Revelation 11:18. It's no joke.

Post #338, is an example of those who would never admit that scientist are guessing when they use terms like these "might have", "could have" etc.
It would probably kill them to admit that.
Then they say religious people close their eyes to reality. Sad.

My point is though, so long as they are uncertain, they have not proven anything. They believe it.

 

[Alien826]

The scientists who were ignored had it figured out. They did not give up, and proved it.
At least they got the chance to proceed.
That's not often the case.
One scientist ended up in the mad house, before his theory was proven.

You keep saying science eventually works it out, or gets it right - corrects the error, but that's missing the point.
The point I am making, is that something is viewed / believed to be right, when it isn't.

If you look at a process that sometimes creates mistakes, which then get corrected, and only see the mistakes, then of course you will say the process doesn't work. You have to look at the process as a whole, and if you do so you will see an inexorable movement toward correctness, not error. Evidence for that is all around you. We don't drive around in horse drawn carts any more, but highly sophisticated automobiles. Last year I was diagnosed with bladder cancer. It was caught very early because they had advanced diagnostic techniques. The surgery was performed using a "robot" that improves on the skill of the surgeon by orders of magnitude. It was done through small holes, 1-2 centimeters, not a huge cut through skin and muscle layers. I now have no cancer. It is checked every three months using yet another amazing machine, that lets the surgeon look into my bladder at a high magnification. One time he found a small patch of cancer cells, no larger than 1/16 of an inch. He then burned it off with the same probe that allowed him to find it. It hasn't recurred.

100 years ago I would probably be looking at imminent death. Science, wonderful science.

If there is evidence that the Bible is true, that's all we need.
If it's backed up and supported by external evidence, that a plus, but not a must.
So, if it can be demonstrated that the Bible is indeed accurate and reliable, both internally and externally, then this is how religious error is corrected. 2 Timothy 3:16

In order to rely on the Bible to that extent you need at least two established facts. This is well illustrated by the Bible verse you quote above. First you need to establish the existence of a God that knows lots of good stuff. Then you need to establish that this God actually inspired the scriptures you are relying on. "Atheists" don't believe you can do that. And you know, if you can't do that it really doesn't matter whether "science" is correct or not. You cannot offer a reasonable alternative.

What I would like to see is both sides of the argument applying the same standards of evidence that they insist that the other side uses.

 

[Nimos]

The point I am making, is that something is viewed / believed to be right, when it isn't.

That is a flaw in humans and that of beliefs. This is why methods are so crucial and so effective in science compared to pretty much everything else. But the method is only as effective as one allows it to be. Look at climate change, the scientific community is pumping out data after data showing that things are not well. Yet human's abilities to adapt to these things are exceptionally poor because it is not really seen as an immediate danger, like the one of Covid, people working with pandemics and the like have been warning those in charge for years, but nothing is really being done before the **** hits the fan. We were lucky that Covid wasn't more deadly than it was, but we might not be as lucky next time. Most countries were extremely poorly prepared for something like this. So not only, if the end result of the effect of using the method to inform us about these things isn't excused well (political), it will cause us issues. But also in regards to climate change and we saw it a lot during Covid especially, where a huge amount of people were sharing misinformation not based on a method, meaning that it was so bad, that sites like youtube etc. Even this forum, had to prevent people from sharing wrong information. That is a huge issue.

But the method used and constantly improved when needed in science is exactly to avoid these things, everyone plays by the same rules. Sure mistakes happen etc. nothing is perfect.

You have quite a lot of faith in people. It's as though you think scientists are Saints who don't have biases and personal interests.
I'm glad not all scientists and other people feel that way.

Sure scientists have this and some will try to fool people, but you must see the issue here with doing that. If I make a scientific study/paper and publish it, you can take my paper and check if you get the same results. If your results are completely different, at some point I will be called out for having screwed up and tried to fake the results.

So it has nothing to do with them being scientists, it's all about the method.

If there is evidence that the Bible is true, that's all we need.
If it's backed up and supported by external evidence, that a plus, but not a must.
So, if it can be demonstrated that the Bible is indeed accurate and reliable, both internally and externally, then this is how religious error is corrected.

Yes, but ultimately you will end up having to answer the question, is God real? Lots of the things in the bible are true, it doesn't surprise anyone, because it obviously reflects the time period it was written. But each claim has to meet its own burden of proof.

Adam and Eve the first humans?
Is God real?
etc.
These are separate claims.

Some are still opinions though.

There are lots of opinions on science. They surely have their own ideas of how they think things are. But these opinions don't end up in school books, without it being made perfectly clear that this is the case if they end up in them at all.

I can't remember the exact number of years, but I think its something like 10 years or so before something is discovered to it actually make it into the school books. (Obviously, you have to double check it) But from what I know the time it takes to get verified and the books can be made etc. This obviously changes as you get to university etc where you work with the newer stuff and are educated in how to handle these things.

God did not create this system. You know what create means, I'm sure.
Why do you think God created this system. I'm just trying to understand how atheists think, since I heard the question asked by atheists more than once.

Because God created everything. If God did not create evolution who did?

You think sin is part of God's big plan? Why?
May I ask what religious organization you were taught in?

I'm guessing what God's great plan is because I have no clue. And as far as I know, it is not explained in the bible either. But if you have an idea, please share.

I wasn't taught by any religious organization, I have been a non-believer my whole life, with no interest in religion at all. I didn't even know what an atheist was. It was first much later I got an interest in it, and actually started with an interest in why people believe what they do, when all the terror stuff was going on but didn't really have anything to do with religion at first, but I obviously knew that religious people believe a lot of things and it made me wonder why some people would believe the religious text to such a point that they would blow themselves and others up. Which is a fairly foreign thought for a non-believer. So at that point, I decided to read the bible, which was simply because I knew at least a little about that, I had no clue that Muslims and Christians actually believed in the same God. And I decided to read it with an open mind, meaning that if it would make me a religious person, I would accept that. But I don't even think I manage more than a couple of pages before I was certain that I was an atheist, there are so many errors in just these few pages that it made no sense, why God would do or allow that. And then I by pure accident got contacted by JW and it gave me a good opportunity to ask questions, so I talked back and forth with one of them for around 2 years, and I can tell you, talking religion with a JW when hardly knowing anything about religion and having to read the bible at the same time was a bit of a challenge, they know the bible very well. And eventually ended up here on the forum.

Sorry for a bit of a long answer, but that basically explains it all.

Sorry and grieved, yes, but what exactly was God sorry and grieved about?

It is explained in the verse, he regretted or was sorry about what man had become, evil.

 

[Nimos]

I don't understand the connection between birds building tree-houses, and design.
I guess you don't see how a bird can be designed, because of evolution.
I see design in things that demonstrate purpose. For example, I don't believe our central nervous system is a product of blind unguided processes.

I think we have to be very clear about what we mean when we say "unguided" and "blind" to avoid confusion.

Evolution is not blind or random as some might call it, it is anything but that. Sure, you can have mutations, but that is not the main idea of evolution and in most cases these mutations are bad.

Evolution is the adaptation to one's environment.

When I say unguided, I mean there is not some overall idea behind evolution, meaning that a God or being decides where it should go or end up. To me, there is no evidence for this being the case, some will disagree, like creationists obviously and they will try to debunk evolution.

So when I say design, in this context, evolution is the designer or nature whatever way you want to put it. God didn't decide that a knee should look or work the way it does, but evolution ended up here because it was what turned out to be the best fitted so far at least. This is basically what survival of the fittest refers to, that you are the one best fittest to your environment and those are the ones surviving, within that species. And if you don't adapt fast enough or for some other reasons you go extinct, which is where most animals end up.

It's an example. Not a comparison, but it allows us to see that if it is humans can do it, then far more a supreme being, and far more advanced.

I'm having a problem understand what you are trying to convey though.
Please explain why you wouldn't compare that to what God is said to be able to do.

Because we have evidence of humans being able to experience these things, whether they are real or not, I think is highly debatable. But God is claim to definitely have these abilities to perfection so it is not the same.

My point is though, so long as they are uncertain, they have not proven anything. They believe it.

But you have to see it from the perspective of God, they might be uncertainties for us, but not God, in which case, free will would be an illusion.

 

[Alien826]

I think we have to be very clear about what we mean when we say "unguided" and "blind" to avoid confusion.

Evolution is not blind or random as some might call it, it is anything but that. Sure, you can have mutations, but that is not the main idea of evolution and in most cases these mutations are bad.

Evolution is the adaptation to one's environment.

@Nimos, I think you have to understand that he knows perfectly well what the theory of Evolution is about. What he is doing is throwing out statements that invite correction in the hope that one of us will say something that he can challenge and that may possibly shake our "faith" (from his pov) in Evolution. In short, you can explain Evolution to him until you are blue in the face, it won't make any difference.

I tried to stop all this by stating that I was not prepared to spend my time debunking endless creationist "arguments" that I had seen addressed over and over for more years than I care to remember.

Of course, you may see this and be writing for the audience. That's a valid approach, certainly.

 

[Nimos]

@Nimos, I think you have to understand that he knows perfectly well what the theory of Evolution is about. What he is doing is throwing out statements that invite correction in the hope that one of us will say something that he can challenge and that may possibly shake our "faith" (from his pov) in Evolution. In short, you can explain Evolution to him until you are blue in the face, it won't make any difference.

I tried to stop all this by stating that I was not prepared to spend my time debunking endless creationist "arguments" that I had seen addressed over and over for more years than I care to remember.

Of course, you may see this and be writing for the audience. That's a valid approach, certainly.

I don't know if that is true, that he doesn't know, because, from what he is writing and the words he uses, it seems like there is some basic confusion. And it's not because I'm an expert in evolution by any means. But some of the stuff is equal to someone saying that we evolved from apes or monkeys. So Ill rather be sure that we are on the same page than talking passed each other.

But you might be right, but if so, pointing out flaws in evolution or simply not me having set knowledge, doesn't prove creation. Evolution is still our most tested scientific theory ever from what I know. So I'm not overly concerned about that, as I'm pretty sure, that people actually working in this field professionally would figure it out far before me

 

[Alien826]

I don't know if that is true, that he doesn't know, because, from what he is writing and the words he uses, it seems like there is some basic confusion. And it's not because I'm an expert in evolution by any means. But some of the stuff is equal to someone saying that we evolved from apes or monkeys. So Ill rather be sure that we are on the same page than talking passed each other.

But you might be right, but if so, pointing out flaws in evolution or simply not me having set knowledge, doesn't prove creation. Evolution is still our most tested scientific theory ever from what I know. So I'm not overly concerned about that, as I'm pretty sure, that people actually working in this field professionally would figure it out far before me

He's throwing old creationist stuff at you to mess with you. I can assure you that he has had replies like yours more times that he can count, and knows perfectly well what ToE says.

 

[nPeace]

And I don't see how that is possible if God knows what we do before we do it. Then our destiny must somehow have been decided, or at least God would have to be a non-intervening God, which would basically make him pointless as I see it.

That's a very interesting thought Nimos.
If God saw our individual destiny, it would either have to be written, or maneuvered. Or... God saw the whole scene around your life, played out in front of him.

Is the latter possible? Please read 2 Kings 8:8-15
You'll notice that Elisha saw what this man would do - future, even before he did it.
Clearly, God showed Elisha, because God looked ahead.

Where God's purpose is involved, he looks into the future in relation to that purpose.
His purpose involved preserving the line to the Messiah, and nothing would stop that, so God pays keen interest - personally getting involved where he needs to.
He can therefore say... 'Remember the first things of a long time ago, that I am the Divine One and there is no other God, nor anyone like me; the One telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done; the One saying, ‘My own counsel will stand, and everything that is my delight I shall do’...' (Isaiah 46:9-10)

If however, God saw your whole life played out from beginning to end, he could not honestly say...
(Ezekiel 3:17-21)

17 “Son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman to the house of Israel; and when you hear a word from my mouth, you must warn them from me. 18 When I say to someone wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ but you do not warn him, and you fail to speak in order to warn the wicked one to turn from his wicked course so that he may stay alive, he will die for his error because he is wicked, but I will ask his blood back from you. 19 But if you warn someone wicked and he does not turn back from his wickedness and from his wicked course, he will die for his error, but you will certainly save your own life. 20 But when someone righteous abandons his righteousness and does what is wrong, I will put a stumbling block before him and he will die. If you did not warn him, he will die for his sin and his righteous acts will not be remembered, but I will ask his blood back from you. 21 But if you have warned the righteous one not to sin, and he does not sin, he will surely keep alive because he was warned, and you will have saved your own life.”​

(Ezekiel 18:32)

32 “‘I do not take any pleasure in the death of anyone,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. ‘So turn back and live.’”​

 

[nPeace]

So sinners would not necessarily be "destroyed" in God's Kingdom, as you claimed. OK

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
A cursed one does not have to die, but they can.
In the context of the scripture in Isaiah 65:20, they do.
They don't die naturally.

 

[nPeace]

If you look at a process that sometimes creates mistakes, which then get corrected, and only see the mistakes, then of course you will say the process doesn't work. You have to look at the process as a whole, and if you do so you will see an inexorable movement toward correctness, not error. Evidence for that is all around you. We don't drive around in horse drawn carts any more, but highly sophisticated automobiles. Last year I was diagnosed with bladder cancer. It was caught very early because they had advanced diagnostic techniques. The surgery was performed using a "robot" that improves on the skill of the surgeon by orders of magnitude. It was done through small holes, 1-2 centimeters, not a huge cut through skin and muscle layers. I now have no cancer. It is checked every three months using yet another amazing machine, that lets the surgeon look into my bladder at a high magnification. One time he found a small patch of cancer cells, no larger than 1/16 of an inch. He then burned it off with the same probe that allowed him to find it. It hasn't recurred.

100 years ago I would probably be looking at imminent death. Science, wonderful science.

I don't want to seem biased.
If I said the same thing about the religion that is true, you would deny it.
I deny what you said too.
So maybe we aren't biased about what we believe. We just see what is, to us, but can't see what the other sees.
What do you think?

In order to rely on the Bible to that extent you need at least two established facts. This is well illustrated by the Bible verse you quote above. First you need to establish the existence of a God that knows lots of good stuff. Then you need to establish that this God actually inspired the scriptures you are relying on. "Atheists" don't believe you can do that. And you know, if you can't do that it really doesn't matter whether "science" is correct or not. You cannot offer a reasonable alternative.

Same thing applies here.
Establish the existence of a God. Done.
Establish that this God actually inspired the scriptures. Done.
Christians don't believe you have established the things you believe. ...and a reasonable alternative to those beliefs is already accepted.

What I would like to see is both sides of the argument applying the same standards of evidence that they insist that the other side uses.

Well we Christians have been saying the same thing, but based on the ongoing arguments, that's not going to happen, because one side thinks as you claimed in your initial comments in your post here... which isn't actually true.

I'll give you two examples in medicine - blood transfusions, and extremely dangerous drugs.
Orthodox views may hold sway due to $$$, but alternatives still stand in opposition, and continue advancing... and gaining millions of informed supporters.

 

[Alien826]

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
A cursed one does not have to die, but they can.
In the context of the scripture in Isaiah 65:20, they do.
They don't die naturally.

You quoted verses that said sinners would be "cursed". You said they would be "destroyed". I asked if "cursed" meant "killed" in that context (destroyed and killed meaning the same thing). You said not necessarily (which makes sense, curses don't have to kill you). I then suggested that your use of "destroyed" might not be accurate.

I was actually interested in what the scripture meant. If it was about life in God's kingdom, then how would sinners be handled? Instant death, or some less final form of correction. The second option gives them a chance to mend their ways and the first option doesn't. Obviously you may not be sure and that's fine, but I found it interesting anyway.

 

[Nimos]

If God saw our individual destiny, it would either have to be written, or maneuvered. Or... God saw the whole scene around your life, played out in front of him.

I'm not sure I see the difference, people's lives are connected. Meaning that certain choices others make could affect my life on an individual level. Which would mean that for God to be able to see the whole of my life he would also need to know the whole of this other person's life, which would require him to know all of those that would influence their lives as well and so on.

Is the latter possible? Please read 2 Kings 8:8-15
You'll notice that Elisha saw what this man would do - future, even before he did it.
Clearly, God showed Elisha, because God looked ahead.

It's an interesting story.

Because would Hazael be able to use his free will to not become king or had he planned to murder him all along? or did God (Elisha) telling him, cause him to murder the king?

Given that God can't lie, one must assume that he would become king at some point, but whether he could do so without becoming a murderer had he not been told is not known. In this story, only God would know whether that would be the case or not. But it doesn't really get rid of the dilemma that Hazael probably wouldn't have free will here, because if he didn't become king, then God would have lied. But as I said above, that also means that the king would need to die. However one could argue that God wasn't telling the whole truth because the king didn't really recover, as he was murdered before that happened.

Anyway as I see it, there is a conflict between free will and that of God being all-knowing.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, but ultimately you will end up having to answer the question, is God real? Lots of the things in the bible are true, it doesn't surprise anyone, because it obviously reflects the time period it was written. But each claim has to meet its own burden of proof.

Adam and Eve the first humans?
Is God real?
etc.
These are separate claims.

Understand that something is not true, based on the number of people that accept or believe it.
Because many atheists don't accept or believe something, doesn't mean that none do.
So, it's not the case that we have to set out to convince all atheists, in order to have proven anything.

There are lots of opinions on science. They surely have their own ideas of how they think things are. But these opinions don't end up in school books, without it being made perfectly clear that this is the case if they end up in them at all.

A lot of things are made perfectly clear that it is the case, and end up in science text books. Yet people point out that they are wrong, and still in the text books.

I can't remember the exact number of years, but I think its something like 10 years or so before something is discovered to it actually make it into the school books. (Obviously, you have to double check it) But from what I know the time it takes to get verified and the books can be made etc. This obviously changes as you get to university etc where you work with the newer stuff and are educated in how to handle these things.

Because God created everything. If God did not create evolution who did?

The expression God created "everything" would be relative Nimos, since everything means all things, and God did not create motorcars.
When I see a baby evolve, I don't say God created the change, but God set the process in motion, by putting the information in the cells, which communicate the functions that carry out changes.

I'm guessing what God's great plan is because I have no clue. And as far as I know, it is not explained in the bible either. But if you have an idea, please share.

It's a long story, but basically, God's purpose is to have a unified family of beings. That purpose does not include evil. Nor Satan the Devil.

I wasn't taught by any religious organization, I have been a non-believer my whole life, with no interest in religion at all. I didn't even know what an atheist was. It was first much later I got an interest in it, and actually started with an interest in why people believe what they do, when all the terror stuff was going on but didn't really have anything to do with religion at first, but I obviously knew that religious people believe a lot of things and it made me wonder why some people would believe the religious text to such a point that they would blow themselves and others up. Which is a fairly foreign thought for a non-believer. So at that point, I decided to read the bible, which was simply because I knew at least a little about that, I had no clue that Muslims and Christians actually believed in the same God. And I decided to read it with an open mind, meaning that if it would make me a religious person, I would accept that. But I don't even think I manage more than a couple of pages before I was certain that I was an atheist, there are so many errors in just these few pages that it made no sense, why God would do or allow that. And then I by pure accident got contacted by JW and it gave me a good opportunity to ask questions, so I talked back and forth with one of them for around 2 years, and I can tell you, talking religion with a JW when hardly knowing anything about religion and having to read the bible at the same time was a bit of a challenge, they know the bible very well. And eventually ended up here on the forum.

Sorry for a bit of a long answer, but that basically explains it all.

No problem. I appreciate it.
So your parents were atheists?

It is explained in the verse, he regretted or was sorry about what man had become, evil.

Basically.

I think we have to be very clear about what we mean when we say "unguided" and "blind" to avoid confusion.

Evolution is not blind or random as some might call it, it is anything but that. Sure, you can have mutations, but that is not the main idea of evolution and in most cases these mutations are bad.

Evolution is the adaptation to one's environment.

When I say unguided, I mean there is not some overall idea behind evolution, meaning that a God or being decides where it should go or end up. To me, there is no evidence for this being the case, some will disagree, like creationists obviously and they will try to debunk evolution.

So when I say design, in this context, evolution is the designer or nature whatever way you want to put it.

Me? Not me Nimos. It's you who want to put it some way.
"Theistic Evolutionist", they call them claim that evolution is directed by God.
Evolution is an undirected process, says Berksley. The mechanisms of evolution can only work on what already exists. Whatever direction their future evolution leads, it will always be dependent upon the characteristics they inherited from their ancestors.

Evolution can't be the designer.

God didn't decide that a knee should look or work the way it does, but evolution ended up here because it was what turned out to be the best fitted so far at least.

So you believe.
I believe contrary.

This is basically what survival of the fittest refers to, that you are the one best fittest to your environment and those are the ones surviving, within that species. And if you don't adapt fast enough or for some other reasons you go extinct, which is where most animals end up.

Because we have evidence of humans being able to experience these things, whether they are real or not, I think is highly debatable. But God is claim to definitely have these abilities to perfection so it is not the same.

I think I may have lost you on this one.

But you have to see it from the perspective of God, they might be uncertainties for us, but not God, in which case, free will would be an illusion.

I don't get it. Or you lost me... one of the two.

I don't know if that is true, that he doesn't know, because, from what he is writing and the words he uses, it seems like there is some basic confusion. And it's not because I'm an expert in evolution by any means. But some of the stuff is equal to someone saying that we evolved from apes or monkeys. So Ill rather be sure that we are on the same page than talking passed each other.

But you might be right, but if so, pointing out flaws in evolution or simply not me having set knowledge, doesn't prove creation. Evolution is still our most tested scientific theory ever from what I know. So I'm not overly concerned about that, as I'm pretty sure, that people actually working in this field professionally would figure it out far before me

I usually find you to be fair... or you try to be.
You give persons the benefit of the doubt, rather than accuse them of dishonesty, trickery, or some other assumed accusation.
You seem to understand what these forums are for... at least from what I have observed.
I won't say more than that.

I understand the theory says we are apes, and dinosaurs are birds, etc.
I'm not getting into all of that.
I'm simply making the point that scientists believe A, when A may be wrong, and sometimes A is shown to be wrong.
The only persons denying that are atheists, and strong Scientism believers, on these forums. Maybe because the say they know A is true. I don't know.

Don't get distracted, or allow yourselves to get distracted by those who would try create illusions of what's not there.
I don't need evolution believers to say or do anything, in order to prove God.
I think you know this Nimos, after speaking with me on a number of threads... or at least you should know.

 

[nPeace]

You quoted verses that said sinners would be "cursed". You said they would be "destroyed". I asked if "cursed" meant "killed" in that context (destroyed and killed meaning the same thing). You said not necessarily (which makes sense, curses don't have to kill you). I then suggested that your use of "destroyed" might not be accurate.

Actually, you asked, So "curse" means death?
If you meant something else, you'll need to forgive me, as I don't read minds.

The verses say...
(Isaiah 65:20) . . .anyone who dies at a hundred will be considered a mere boy. . .
Death is uncommon at that time, so that...
(Isaiah 65:20) . . .the sinner will be cursed, even though he is a hundred years of age.

That ones death is unnatural.

I was actually interested in what the scripture meant. If it was about life in God's kingdom, then how would sinners be handled? Instant death, or some less final form of correction. The second option gives them a chance to mend their ways and the first option doesn't. Obviously you may not be sure and that's fine, but I found it interesting anyway.

I think I stated it with surety.
I didn't change what I stated.
Anyone who chose to disobey God, would have died - been put to death, instantly. No one would have been allowed to cause any disturbance.

 

[Nimos]

Understand that something is not true, based on the number of people that accept or believe it.
Because many atheists don't accept or believe something, doesn't mean that none do.
So, it's not the case that we have to set out to convince all atheists, in order to have proven anything.

I fully agree, in fact, that would be a logical fallacy were that the case.

But that doesn't change the overall idea that if a claim is made, it requires evidence, if no such evidence can or is provided, such claim can freely be dismissed as well.

A lot of things are made perfectly clear that it is the case, and end up in science text books. Yet people point out that they are wrong, and still in the text books.

Let's go through the first two examples given in that link, doing some quick google on the topics.

Peppered Moths

Some thought the adults were changing their colors the same way the larvae could match the color of the twigs. Others thought the chemicals in the smoke darkened the moths.

Finally it was found that the color was genetic. Moths passed their color to the next generation. Eggs from light moths developed into light moths and dark moth eggs turned to dark adults. The dark color was caused by a mutation in the DNA of a single moth, and the mutated gene had been passed to all its offspring.

Why doesn't he mention what I have highlighted with red in his text, it took me less than 2 minutes to look up?

Embryonic Homology
This is from Berkeley University website about this:

The evolutionary study of embryos reached a peak in the late 1800s thanks primarily to the efforts of one extraordinarily gifted, though not entirely honest, scientist named Ernst Haeckel

Haeckel was so convinced of his Biogenetic Law that he was willing to bend evidence to support it. The truth is that the development of embryos does not fit into the strict progression that Haeckel claimed.

Why doesn't this person mention that the scientific community is well aware of it, and actively make sure that this is known to people? And purely using your own reasoning, do you think that textbooks today teaches student these false things when a University on their very website explain that it is wrong?

My guess is that you will be able to do the exact same things for the last two examples, but do you think that the person in the link is honest?

As I told you, mistakes and people cheating in science happen, it doesn't surprise anyone. But as I also said, science is self-correcting, because of the method it relies on, which allows others to evaluate and test others' work to see if they reach the same conclusion or to see if errors were made, so they can be corrected.

The expression God created "everything" would be relative Nimos, since everything means all things, and God did not create motorcars.
When I see a baby evolve, I don't say God created the change, but God set the process in motion, by putting the information in the cells, which communicate the functions that carry out changes.

I understand that and agree that God did not create each car, we are purely talking about things for which we do not know the creator already.

No problem. I appreciate it.
So your parents were atheists?

I know my mother is, but I think my dad is more open about the general idea. But he doesn't really know a lot about it, and also thinks that people don't really believe in all this stuff in the bible etc. and that they know it's not really true. So he might be open to the idea of a higher power, but I don't think he buys any of the religious stuff as it is written, or that he at least just sees them as made-up stories. Despite me having tried to explain to him that people actually do believe these things.

But religion is not something we talk about very often, I'm the only one in my family that has any interest in it at all. My brother is also more open to the idea of a higher power, but again knows very little about it and to him, Moses might as well be Abraham or one of the others. So they don't lean towards one of the established religions. But again, religion has never been important in my family, it is not something which has been discussed or my parents telling me what to believe or not. I guess you can compare it to your family never discussing Cricket if none of you has an interest in it, then it is simply not relevant in your life.

Evolution can't be the designer.

I think you understood what I meant when I explained it.

Obviously, I don't suggest that evolution is designing anything in regards to how we understand a designer, as that infers intention. But rather that evolution evolves things according to whatever inputs it has and based on that some features survive or evolve or they don't.

I don't get it. Or you lost me... one of the two.

Imagine this.

You and I are standing and looking at a pile of wood.

Both of us know that I know everything, both past, present and future, it is my special ability.

I tell you that the pile of wood is going to burn and exactly how it will happen.

This would mean that nothing you can do will change that. You might come up with all sorts of ideas of how to avoid it. But if my special abilities are true, the pile of wood will burn exactly as I said it will. Therefore whatever you think or believe is irrelevant, because things will happen as I know they will. So you might use your "free will" to do whatever you feel like, but it doesn't change anything, because all that is already known to me and is taken into account. Therefore the only perspective that is relevant is mine if I know how everything will turn out and also being the only one able to change anything. Your "free will" is nothing but an illusion.

I usually find you to be fair... or you try to be.
You give persons the benefit of the doubt, rather than accuse them of dishonesty, trickery, or some other assumed accusation.
You seem to understand what these forums are for... at least from what I have observed.
I won't say more than that.

Thanks for that.

And you are not incorrect, I do not see any value in having a go at others for having a lack of knowledge about something or simply having misunderstood something, or simply assuming that they are out to "trick" me. There are plenty of things I have absolutely no clue about and if I were to ask "stupid" questions or completely misunderstand something, then I see little value in someone coming along that knows it, making fun or talking down to me or assuming I was trying to trick them, rather than explaining to me how it actually is.

I will rather have people intentionally think that they can fool me or play dumb if they believe they get something out of that. I'm pretty sure I can handle that without any issues anyway and doesn't particularly rub me the wrong way, as I think it is rather obvious who the real fool would be in such a case.

I understand the theory says we are apes, and dinosaurs are birds, etc.

We have a common ancestor with them, just to be precise. So a being that is neither or both, depending on how you want to look at it.

Humans together with the other great apes are classified into the taxonomy "Great apes" based on shared characteristics, which means that we are apes in that sense. Basically in the same way as you could classify a station car from Toyota, Kia or Ford etc. into a group called "Cars", then you might have a group called "Trucks", "Motorcycles" etc. and all these have an ancestor group called "Vehicles" and one could imagine that planes and boats might be connected somewhere as well. So just for fun, we could imagine that a vehicle, in this case, would be something that is neither a car, truck or boat etc. But eventually evolved into these. I think you get the point.

I'm simply making the point that scientists believe A, when A may be wrong, and sometimes A is shown to be wrong.
The only persons denying that are atheists, and strong Scientism believers, on these forums. Maybe because the say they know A is true. I don't know.

Obviously, you can't defend against stupidity. If there are people that are set on claiming that science can never be wrong, what can you do? You have shown examples of it here in the link you posted, and I have shown you how the scientific community have dealt with it, not trying to hide it. What more can you do, if these people will not admit it?

But my impression is that there are very few people like this and that the majority is well aware that mistakes happen and understand that science as a concept, is self-correcting, even if a mistake survives for 50 years, eventually someone will figure it out and correct it.

I don't need evolution believers to say or do anything, in order to prove God.
I think you know this Nimos, after speaking with me on a number of threads... or at least you should know.

You don't have to worry about that

Those working with evolution wouldn't allow God in there as an explanation in the first place. Supernatural things are not part of science. If God was allowed as an explanation, anything would be possible, so it is not because they are against God, but it would cause serious issues when it comes to objectivity.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not sure I see the difference, people's lives are connected. Meaning that certain choices others make could affect my life on an individual level. Which would mean that for God to be able to see the whole of my life he would also need to know the whole of this other person's life, which would require him to know all of those that would influence their lives as well and so on.

No. ...and I doubt you can even begin to demonstrate that.
It sounds like a lot of "I'll just say what I want so long as it argues against".

It's an interesting story.

Because would Hazael be able to use his free will to not become king or had he planned to murder him all along? or did God (Elisha) telling him, cause him to murder the king?

Hazael is a man.
A man has qualities, and acquires qualities - ambition, pride, greed... etc.
Based on circumstances that may arise, along with that man's motives, desires, etc., he acts.
It's his actions, based on his desires, motives... his choice.

Yes. His free will choice. He made it... freely.... based on his desire.

Given that God can't lie, one must assume that he would become king at some point, but whether he could do so without becoming a murderer had he not been told is not known. In this story, only God would know whether that would be the case or not. But it doesn't really get rid of the dilemma that Hazael probably wouldn't have free will here, because if he didn't become king, then God would have lied. But as I said above, that also means that the king would need to die. However one could argue that God wasn't telling the whole truth because the king didn't really recover, as he was murdered before that happened.

You have it all wrong.
God did not state something before it happened, in order for it to happen.
God stated something before it happened, because he saw it happen before it actually happened.
In other words, God stepped into the future, while in the present.
You're not getting it. I don't know why, but maybe you will eventually explain why you can't see that.

Anyway as I see it, there is a conflict between free will and that of God being all-knowing.

All knowing, in most people's understanding. Ah. Maybe that's the problem.

 

[Nimos]

No. ...and I doubt you can even begin to demonstrate that.
It sounds like a lot of "I'll just say what I want so long as it argues against".

No, I'm talking purely from a logical point of view. As my example with the pile of firewood in the last post.

Sure you can demonstrate it.

If a person murders another person, that action will affect not only these two people but every one that is related to them. Isn't that fairly obvious, that a person's fate can not be looked at individually?

Yes. His free will choice. He made it... freely.... based on his desire.

Yes, but did God know that he would become king because he murdered him the next morning, or did God not expect that? And if God knew that this was what he would do, could he have chosen not to? and if so, why didn't God know this already?

All knowing, in most people's understanding. Ah. Maybe that's the problem.

The bible says that God is all-knowing right? or what do you mean?