Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[jamesmorrow]

How are acts of war considered murder? Like I keep stressing, you need to know the difference between murder and non-malice killing.

i repeat my question from last week, which you ignored..... is the killing of an innocent baby MURDER or not???

 

[filthy tugboat]

Without humans, the very thing that you claim came from non-intelligence (the zygote) would not exist. You said that the "process is reduced to non-intelligence", but this completely ignores the fact that the process STARTED from intelligence.

It doesn't ignore the fact, it embraces it, hence, "reduced to non-intelligence." If it didn't start from intelligence, how could it be reduced to non-intelligence? I've already acknowledged this, an intelligent being produces the zygote which is non-intelligent. Then through natural processes that non-intelligent zygote produces an intelligent being. Intelligence from non-intelligence. Please now demonstrate what relevance humans creating the zygote has, how does it effect my argument?

But to get to the point, I can use "when God created the universe", because it was an act in time. That is why I acknowledged the fact that God went from atemporal to temporal at the moment of creation, "when" he began to create was when time began.

The act of creation produced time which means that the creation itself cannot have been temporal. Therefore God could never create anything as change cannot occur without time. Time is a measurement of change. If God existed at any point atemporally then change can never occur with God, creation can't happen, thoughts cannot be had, actions canot be performed. God would be in one state. I would say permanently but without time, permanently doesn't mean much.

The act of creation began the first temporal effect. So it is perfectly reasonable to say "when" God created the universe. I dont necessarily think that the word "when" can only be used in a temporal sense. I think the word can be used to describe a state of existence, not necessarily temporal existence.

How can "when" refer to a state of existence? When is a specific reference to time.

Lets say a man was sitting in a chair PERFECTLY still for eternity (eternally meaning atemporal).

What? Eternal is a reference to time, it means all time. if something is eternally true, it is true always, of all times.

The man never moved. But then he made the action of standing up. It wasn't until he began to move that time began.

What? Why did time begin when he began to move? If time didn't exist prior to his movement, how could he move? Without time movement can't occur.

Not at all, I am saying we have evidence based on almost a hundred years of science that the universe began to exist. If the Standard Model of the big bang is correct, then the universe began from a singularity point.

Exactly, began from a singularity, I'm glad you made the distinction between "the universe began to exist" and "the singularity popped into existence." Scientifically speaking, the beginning of the universe is the expansion of the singularity, not the singularity coming into existence. Something the quotes you put it at the end certainly don't support. Not the modern ones anyway.

Nothing can. I am not saying that the universe itself came from nothing, but what I am saying is that a Creator created the universe out of nothing.

How can nothing have something created out of it? How can even God act on nothing, create something out of nothing? If at one point, there was nothing, how could something have come about? Even with God and all of his magic, nothing has no attributes, it doesn't have the attribute of "can produce something" or even "can have something produced out of it". Nothing cannot be acted upon otherwise it isn't nothing, it's something that can be acted upon. So do please clarify how what your saying is possible.

Either the universe was created by a transcendent First Cause, or it popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. It is clear with option is more plausible and possible.

Popped into being is a bit off.. Expanded out of a singularity is much more accurate.

First of all, on the Standard model, there was nothing material before the big bang.

An unconfirmed hypothesis. Unless you have some measure of proof for that or some peer reviewed work pertaining to the matter?

Second, so far, every other model fails when it comes to negating a finite universe. Third, we not only have evidence in science that the universe began to exist, but we have evidence from sound philosophical arguments as well. The evidence is clear, the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago, and this cries out for a transcendent supernatural cause.

Only those looking for a transcendent supernatural cause are going to find one.

If the singularity was an example of entropy at its highest, then that makes it even more improbable that the entropy level could ever had such low entropy conditions. If you had a million small pieces of paper in a giant hat, each piece was number from 1 to a 1,000000, and you scrambled all the numbers up and tossed the hat in the air, what is the probability of each number landing in numerical order from 1 to 1,000000? Each number has the same probability of landing, but it is even more improbable that you will get the numbers in numerical order. The chances of us reaching a state of low entropy from high entropy is more improbable than this, because you not only have to deal with the improbability of the universe permitting human life, but you have to deal with the improbability of human life originating even if these improbable conditions were met.

Improbability? What? I'm saying that the event of expansion and it's cause may have lowered the entropy of the universe. How is it based on chance? The second law of thermodynamics clearly states that entropy doesn't decrease in a closed system. Whatever effected the singularity that caused it to expand may have lowered the entropy. I'm not saying it did or that i know for sure, I'm just proposing a potentiality.

That is why on the theistic view, the low entropy conditions had to be "placed" in the singularity by an Intelligent Designer.

Because there's no other answer and intelligent design relies on gaps in knowledge and the notion that magic can fill any gap in knowledge.

I think the evidence for intelligent design is very "evident" (pun intended )

I gathered from the quotation mars lol. I would have assumed you to be an ID advocate. To what degree, I was unaware until now.

No its not appeal to popularity because I wasn't implying that just because they disgreed with you it made what they believe in right. I was trying to emphasize that your moral code is different than at least a billion people, basically saying "well, at least a billion people feel as if the bible is a morally perfect book, so who is right, you or them". Nice try though.

Who is right? Me or them? I seriously think even this response indicates an appeal to popularity. It looks like you're saying that my argument is weaker because a billion people disagree with it?

But there is a difference, and the difference is if he created us with a holy nature, then we would have no choice but to love and obey him, but thats not genuine love. That is forced love, programmed love.

Wouldn't we? Are you saying that God is not free? That God is forced to love and obey himself? Does a holy nature necessitate that any being with a holy nature is naturally narcissistic or that they naturally love and obey God? Earlier when you separated sinful and holy natures, you claimed that both had free will but that those with sinful natures are inclined to sin. So does a Holy nature not have free will?

True and geniune love is when you love someone without being forced to, and choosing to love someone not because you have to, but because you want to.

So God is incapable of true and genuine love because he has a holy nature?

Psychopath? Why are you name calling? Just because that man subjectively did what was right to him according to his free will?

Nope, he's a psychopath because he fits the definition of the term psychopath; "Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others and the rules of society." In Australia, the rights of others and rules of society do not permit the unauthorized trespassing of property and murder of others.

On your view we are just advanced animals, so is it a male lion a psychopath for killing a clan of hyenas??

Probably, Lions don't usually work that way, they usually kill game, not hyena's and they usually only kill what they need to eat, they don't actively hunt down and kill a species or group of animals in it's entirety.

If you call one animal a psychopath why not another?

I may have? But lions don't live in our society, they are under no social agreement with us and therefore don't fit the description of "psychopath".

The point is, there are no objective moral values without God. Morals and ethics change from time to time, place to place, people to people. That is my point.

I doubt that there are objective morals with God. What makes them objective? God's power to reward and punish for following them? Since when did "might make right"?

 

[filthy tugboat]

Well, assuming that the Christian God exist, and they are sinners, they would need atonement for their sins as well. So, yes, it would be objectively wrong for them to commit this kind of act because this kind of act is not consistent with the Christian God.

This hardly answers the question, what would you say to them? The same thing I would, "this is wrong, I don't like this, please stop." You might say God doesn't like this as well but the points the same and what was achieved by asking the question you asked? I don't understand the point of the question.

Now this is a good question lol. If God existed and there was no afterlife.....hmmm...well, I obeyed my parents even though more often then not there was no reward as a result. So yes, I would think that I would still obey.

The question wasn't asking whether you would follow, I'm asking what would be gained by following the morals God promotes? What makes God's morals right other than the notion that he rewards those who follow those morals and punishes those that don't follow? Is that the only thing that makes God moral? I don't understand the basis for your claims that God sets the standard for objective morality.

Well, like I said, God commanded this as an act of judgement. The Amorites were evil people, engaging in all kinds of jacked up activity that most of the other nations were engaging in, like human sacrifices and homosexuality. Plus, they were enemies of Israel so they had to be dealt with.

From my understanding, the records in the Bible about the nations they went to war with are easily dismissed as propaganda, you can't trust the documents in the same way you can't trust governments that go to war and spread lies about their enemies. All nations do it, the Nazi's did it, America did it, England did it, Russia, Japan, Australia, the French. They've done it countless times throughout history. They lie about their enemy to raise morale, to encourage nationalism, to give the idea to the people that they are fighting the good fight and that the war effort is a good thing. You can say whatever you want about God not lying, we're not talking about that here, this is about the Israelites lying and not in a bad way, just in a way that supports their war effort.

Once again, you have to distinguish between murder and killing. If God orders you to kill someone, it is an act of JUDGEMENT. You dont seem to be understanding the difference.

As I've proposed a couple of times now, I doubt the notion that if God exists he is morally perfect or commands morality. What makes his commands "Judgement" and the commands of Hitler "Murder"?

As I said, it was an act of JUDGEMENT for the nations sins. There are no scriptures in the bible where God just ordered people to be killed for no reason. So for you to shed this in the worse light possible is disingenuous.

I never said he did it for no reason, i am however saying now that his reasons were poor and I don't support the conclusions he drew or the commands he made because of those reasons.

Second, its not as if God discriminated, he even carried out massive acts of judgement upon his own people, the Israelites, all as an act of judgement.

I don't care whether he hated the Jews as much as he hated everyone else, the point is that he ordered the death of men, women and children, something you seemed to be unaware of. The men left were the ones that didn't go to war so presumably the ones incapable of fighting, or the passive ones that refused to fight against the Israelites, why did they have to die too? It doesn't make sense.

How are acts of war considered murder? Like I keep stressing, you need to know the difference between murder and non-malice killing.

Even in modern wars, civilian casualties carried out intentionally is considered murder. Of course what Moses supposedly did is murder, non-combatants, EVERY ONE OF THEM! Didn't matter how old, didn't matter what they did, what they supported, if they were in the cities at the time the Israelites entered them they were dead. This is genocide on par with if not exceeding the Nazi genocide.

Objectively wrong according to Australian law but subjectively elsewhere? This makes it subjective by definition.

No it doesn't even if I agree with the notion that absolute objective laws exist, subjective interpretations and subjective morality still exists. They are real things, the only thing that is up for debate is whether absolute objective laws exist. Seriously, if Christianity is right and all that, I still have my subjective morality it would just be wrong.

Objection means that an act is wrong regardless of who thinks it was right. For example, if Austrialian law allowed young girls to work in brothels ages 6-12, would this be objectively right?

According to Australian law, yes. Also, what about the 13-18 year olds?

Second, you said "subjectively worng according to me and many others I know agree with me"......now who is appealing to population? hahaha.

Not me? How was I appealing to population? I was stating a fact, many people, everyone I know personally do not support and are offended by the notion of someone walking into a strangers home and killing all of it's inhabitants.

Well, unless those biblical references were in the post that I didnt respond to, I havent seen them.

One of them was, it's a shame you didn't bother to read it. I don't even care that you didn't respond, the least you could have done was read it.

So, during the sting operation, the officers know the woman isn't a prostitute, but they also know that her standing there would bring men that think that she is a prostitute to her. It is a delusion based on preconceived notion.

What? How was it a delusion? Are you saying that everyone that is mistaken is deluded? If I see someone or something, and think it is something that it is not, I am deluded? This just massively redefines the term delusion. Either way, the Police officers intent was deception, in the same way God's intent was deception. He goaded people into a scenario where they would believe or continue to believe something that was untrue. If you don't consider this deceptive behavior, what do you think the definition of deception is?

And yes you did, you claimed God was a liar, and I asked you were did you get that idea, and you gave me the scripture. Thats exactly what happened.

I still maintain God is a liar, I just want you to get the facts straight, I didn't say that if someone is deluded that they are being lied to. I said that God specifically in this case lied to people by deluding them into believing or continuing to believe something that was not true. His intent was deception and that's what makes him a liar.

What?? I am quoting every thing that I respond to, what why do you keep saying I dont read it. If I am responding to it, i am reading it. But anwayz, you want quotes, I thought you would never ask...

"Most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe" (Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology, 1978, P.C.W Davies)

"At this singularity, space and time came into existence, literally nothing existed before the singularity" (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principal 1986)

"The universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space was created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe."
(Will the Universe Expand Forever? Scientific American, March 1976. Pg 65 James Gunn, Beatrice Tinsley)

"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural" (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, New York, Macmillian, 1933, pg 24)

"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang" (Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, 1996, pg 20)

So as I said, you are very late. STEM began to exist, this is actual and factual.

Very... ahhhh... modern? 1996 is the most recent quote there and then 1986 and that ends up at 1933? Really? This is the best you could do? OK well fortunately the most recent piece doesn't conflict with what I am trying to say. i never stated that the universe did not begin to exist, i object to what you think that implies though. You think it means that the singularity came into existence. This is false, the beginning of the universe is marked as the expansion of the singularity which means that the singularity already existed at the beginning of the universe. So the only relatively modern evidence you gave does nothing to support your notion of the singularity coming into existence.

God created the space that space expanded in to, obviously. The point is, out of nothing, nothing comes.

Yet God can effect nothing? How? Nothing doesn't have the property that allows things to be effected. It has no properties, no attributes. How can God create any effect at all out of nothing?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Tugboat, I admire your tenacity. You should get one of those award shield thingies.

 

[filthy tugboat]

To add context to your Stephan Hawking quote;

"Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" — Stephen W. Hawking
A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (1988), 8-9.


Just to clarify, he stated that the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitesimally dense, which means he is proposing that the singularity was the universe in a dense and small space. The singularity held the contents of the universe, it was the universe just in a state different to the one we now view it.

"The epoch before about a billionth of a second, however, remains murky territory, with plenty of scope for disagreement."(ref)

Also, this is a relevant quote that seriously lends doubt to your notions that the singularity came into existence. There is no evidence supporting anything prior to the expansion of the universe itself.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Tugboat, I admire your tenacity. You should get one of those award shield thingies.

Wait, there's awards for this? Why didn't anyone say so earlier?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

i repeat my question from last week, which you ignored..... is the killing of an innocent baby MURDER or not???

According to 1st Corinthians 7 v 14 the parent is responsible for the minor child.

Unlike animals, adult humans are held morally responsible for their actions.

So, when there is 'divine execution' [not murder] then the parent is responsible for the life of the minor.

 

[Thief]

To add context to your Stephan Hawking quote;

"Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" — Stephen W. Hawking
A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (1988), 8-9.


Just to clarify, he stated that the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitesimally dense, which means he is proposing that the singularity was the universe in a dense and small space. The singularity held the contents of the universe, it was the universe just in a state different to the one we now view it.

"The epoch before about a billionth of a second, however, remains murky territory, with plenty of scope for disagreement."(ref)

Also, this is a relevant quote that seriously lends doubt to your notions that the singularity came into existence. There is no evidence supporting anything prior to the expansion of the universe itself.

Yes I dare....the mighty Hawkings has fallen.

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point can be allowed.
Then it is true...all the 'laws' we know break down and cannot be used as reference.
No space...no time....no movement....no substance, as we say it.

That there is no evidence of prior existence?

You mean existence as we know it?
Is it not so.... that what you 'know' does not apply?

Turning to science for answers will not work.
No photo...no equation...no experiment....no fingerprint...
No evidence because such things cannot exist.
Have we not agreed?
Did you not say so?

But to then say that prior existence to the reality would have no bearing upon this reality...is false.

It cannot be said..."I AM"....without sound or echo.
No shadow or reflection with out light.

The cause for the creation...is God.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hawking hasn't fallen, ol' son. But Jesus did.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Yes I dare....the mighty Hawkings has fallen.

The highlighted passage wasn't hawkins, sorry

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point can be allowed.
Then it is true...all the 'laws' we know break down and cannot be used as reference.
No space...no time....no movement....no substance, as we say it.

Agreed.

That there is no evidence of prior existence?

You mean existence as we know it?
Is it not so.... that what you 'know' does not apply?

Turning to science for answers will not work.
No photo...no equation...no experiment....no fingerprint...
No evidence because such things cannot exist.
Have we not agreed?
Did you not say so?

My point was that conclusions about what occurred prior to expansion are unwarranted, we simply don't know what was happening before expansion occurred.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It doesn't ignore the fact, it embraces it, hence, "reduced to non-intelligence." If it didn't start from intelligence, how could it be reduced to non-intelligence? I've already acknowledged this, an intelligent being produces the zygote which is non-intelligent. Then through natural processes that non-intelligent zygote produces an intelligent being. Intelligence from non-intelligence. Please now demonstrate what relevance humans creating the zygote has, how does it effect my argument?

I repeat, both the zygote and the human that it will later become both came from intelligence. If you trace this process back in time, you will reach the point where there was no intelligence at all to do any reproducing. Yet, science doesn't know how life could have formed naturally without guidance. Scientists are having a hard time dealing with this, and the odds are incredibly against it.

The act of creation produced time which means that the creation itself cannot have been temporal.

Ok, the first act of creation was temporal, I conceded the point.

Therefore God could never create anything as change cannot occur without time. Time is a measurement of change. If God existed at any point atemporally then change can never occur with God, creation can't happen, thoughts cannot be had, actions canot be performed. God would be in one state. I would say permanently but without time, permanently doesn't mean much.

Wait a minute, we agree that the act of creation was a temporal effect, so how then can you go on to say "God could never create anything as change cannot occur without time", um, the change occurred IN TIME. The first act of creation was IN TIME.

How can "when" refer to a state of existence? When is a specific reference to time.

Ok, point granted.

What? Eternal is a reference to time, it means all time. if something is eternally true, it is true always, of all times.

That is only one definiton of eternal/eternity. The other definiton is "timelessness", without or indepedent of time, as the wiki article and dictionary.com indicates.

Eternity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Eternity | Define Eternity at Dictionary.com

What? Why did time begin when he began to move? If time didn't exist prior to his movement, how could he move? Without time movement can't occur.

The movement occurred IN TIME. Once the movement occurred, he went from atemporal to temporal, and he will always be "potentionally infinite", there is no going back. Time didnt exist before he moved, he moved, time began. See?

Exactly, began from a singularity, I'm glad you made the distinction between "the universe began to exist" and "the singularity popped into existence." Scientifically speaking, the beginning of the universe is the expansion of the singularity, not the singularity coming into existence. Something the quotes you put it at the end certainly don't support. Not the modern ones anyway.

The singularity did come in to existence, like I said, it is not something that was just sitting there for infinitude and all of a sudden expanded. Nobody knows how or why this happened, but we know that it did. Here is the problem, if we postulate that the singularity was sitting there for an infinite amount of time, and there is nothing outside, right? All of the matter and energy that will ever exist, exists in the singularity, right?? Why would it all of a sudden expand? Why didnt it expand sooner? Why not later?? Especially if it had an infinite amount of time to expand, what would be the reason why it expanded when it did, if there are no external factors beyond it?? Makes no sense whatsover. That is why no one is postulating the singularity sitting there for all these billion years. The singularity appeared and expanded from the moment it appeared, and has been expanding ever since.

How can nothing have something created out of it? How can even God act on nothing, create something out of nothing? If at one point, there was nothing, how could something have come about? Even with God and all of his magic, nothing has no attributes, it doesn't have the attribute of "can produce something" or even "can have something produced out of it". Nothing cannot be acted upon otherwise it isn't nothing, it's something that can be acted upon. So do please clarify how what your saying is possible.

Good question. I dont think anyone could give a good answer as to how God could create out of nothing. BUT, it is more plausible to believe that God created out of nothing, than believe that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least we can see and understand that the magician caused the rabbit to appear. But on naturalism, the rabbit just pops in to being uncaused out of nothing, with no magician in sight. We know from every day intuition that things dont just pop in to being out of nothingness. So, we can either believe that God, a being of unimaginable power, created the universe out of nothing, or we can believe that the universe popped in to being, uncaused, with low entropy conditions, out of a state of nothingness. I think it is obvious which view is more plausible.

Popped into being is a bit off.. Expanded out of a singularity is much more accurate.

You have this habit of thinking that the singularity was infinite, and waiting to expand at some point. This is false thinking. It didn't exist before 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

An unconfirmed hypothesis. Unless you have some measure of proof for that or some peer reviewed work pertaining to the matter?

I gave you quotes based on the standard model, and at least two of those quotes did indeed say that there was no matter or time before the singularity.

Only those looking for a transcendent supernatural cause are going to find one.

And I can just as easily say that only those looking for natural causes are going to find one. But that isn't the point, the point is, we look for natural causes when trying to explain things within the universe. Anything beyond the universe, science will never be able to explain. Science cannot explain absolute origins. If science was a cop, the concept of absolute origins would be "beyond its juristiction" haha. Where science stops, philosophy and metaphysics starts.

Improbability? What? I'm saying that the event of expansion and it's cause may have lowered the entropy of the universe. How is it based on chance? The second law of thermodynamics clearly states that entropy doesn't decrease in a closed system. Whatever effected the singularity that caused it to expand may have lowered the entropy. I'm not saying it did or that i know for sure, I'm just proposing a potentiality.

Whoa wait a minute wait a minute. First off, lowered it to that kind of degree? You cant get that kind of degree of entropy from unguided and blind processes. This is like giving a monkey a typewriter and telling it to type out the words of MacBeth, even though the monkey doesnt know anything about MacBeth. You leave, and the monkey begins randomly typing, and you come back (no matter how much time you gave the monkey to type it), and the monkey has typed MacBeth word for word, sentence after sentence, period after period. This is crazy. Second, you are right, the entropy is increasing in our universe, which means that our universe was "wound up", and is now running out of energy, like a battery. "Whatever effected the singularity that caused it to expand".......yeah......God....only something with a intellectual mind can get entropy levels that low to that specified degree of tuning. You cant get this kind of fine tuning from a blind, random, and natural process. This kind of improbability is only used by people who want to negate God from the equation so bad that they are willing to postulate anything to do this.

Because there's no other answer and intelligent design relies on gaps in knowledge and the notion that magic can fill any gap in knowledge.

I repeat, 10(10123)...that is a 10 as the base, and a 1 as the exponent, followed by 123 zeros. That is the number you have to deal with. I base theism not because im looking to fill the gaps, but because the other alternative seems absurd to me.

Who is right? Me or them? I seriously think even this response indicates an appeal to popularity. It looks like you're saying that my argument is weaker because a billion people disagree with it?

I wasn't saying that Christianity is true, or biblical morality is "true" because a billion people believe in it. I was saying that the things you find in the bible are immoral and such, and I was saying, well, a billion people disagree with you. But that isn't saying that have the right belief. All of this leads to more subjectivity, which makes my point.

Wouldn't we? Are you saying that God is not free? That God is forced to love and obey himself? Does a holy nature necessitate that any being with a holy nature is naturally narcissistic or that they naturally love and obey God? Earlier when you separated sinful and holy natures, you claimed that both had free will but that those with sinful natures are inclined to sin. So does a Holy nature not have free will?

God is love, of course he loves himself. I love myself. Cmon now with these irrelevant questions. I mean seriously, have you ran out of things to critisize, that you question whether or not God is forced to love and obey himself??

So God is incapable of true and genuine love because he has a holy nature?

I guess I shouldnt have made an attempt to answer the question, if i knew there would be a barrage of meaningless questions as an a result.

Nope, he's a psychopath because he fits the definition of the term psychopath; "Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others and the rules of society." In Australia, the rights of others and rules of society do not permit the unauthorized trespassing of property and murder of others.

And the definition presupposes the notion of "sane human beings don't disregard the rights of others and rules of society". The rules of society was made by people with a subjective standard of right and wrong. What came first, the rule, or the man?

Probably, Lions don't usually work that way, they usually kill game, not hyena's and they usually only kill what they need to eat, they don't actively hunt down and kill a species or group of animals in it's entirety.

But hypothetically speaking, if they did...

I may have? But lions don't live in our society, they are under no social agreement with us and therefore don't fit the description of "psychopath".

Social agreement? Were you part of the social agreement? I dont remember agreeing with anything. I was born in a world where there were already rules set to follow. I never agreed to anything

I doubt that there are objective morals with God. What makes them objective? God's power to reward and punish for following them? Since when did "might make right"?

So, if there are no objective morals even with God, still, that goes back to subjectivity. The man that murders your family is not objectively wrong, he is subjectively wrong only to those that disagree with him, but since it is not cool to "appeal to population", it doesnt matter who disagrees with him, right?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This hardly answers the question, what would you say to them? The same thing I would, "this is wrong, I don't like this, please stop." You might say God doesn't like this as well but the points the same and what was achieved by asking the question you asked? I don't understand the point of the question.

If they did this, and God created them, they would be "objectively" wrong. With God, his laws applies EVERYWHERE. So they couldnt get out of wrongdoing just by saying "It is right according to our moral code." God doesnt have restrictions on where his laws work and doesnt work. But on your view, there is no God, and they would be perfectly moral on their code by molesting you lol.

The question wasn't asking whether you would follow, I'm asking what would be gained by following the morals God promotes? What makes God's morals right other than the notion that he rewards those who follow those morals and punishes those that don't follow? Is that the only thing that makes God moral? I don't understand the basis for your claims that God sets the standard for objective morality.

I dont know what kind of answer you are looking for. He is the source of goodness. It is not a standard that is "set", it is a standard that simply "is".

From my understanding, the records in the Bible about the nations they went to war with are easily dismissed as propaganda, you can't trust the documents in the same way you can't trust governments that go to war and spread lies about their enemies. All nations do it, the Nazi's did it, America did it, England did it, Russia, Japan, Australia, the French. They've done it countless times throughout history. They lie about their enemy to raise morale, to encourage nationalism, to give the idea to the people that they are fighting the good fight and that the war effort is a good thing. You can say whatever you want about God not lying, we're not talking about that here, this is about the Israelites lying and not in a bad way, just in a way that supports their war effort.

Um, when did the Israelites lie? What?

As I've proposed a couple of times now, I doubt the notion that if God exists he is morally perfect or commands morality. What makes his commands "Judgement" and the commands of Hitler "Murder"?

God is the author of life. Life is his first, and ours second. He judges how he sees fit. God is perfect, by definition. His commandments and decisions are therefore perfect. Hitler was not perfect, therefore his commands and decisions are not perfect. Big difference.

I never said he did it for no reason, i am however saying now that his reasons were poor and I don't support the conclusions he drew or the commands he made because of those reasons.

Hahahahahah "i dont support the conclusions he drew or the commands he made" Ok dude. Keep giving me your presupposed subjective opinion.

I don't care whether he hated the Jews as much as he hated everyone else, the point is that he ordered the death of men, women and children, something you seemed to be unaware of. The men left were the ones that didn't go to war so presumably the ones incapable of fighting, or the passive ones that refused to fight against the Israelites, why did they have to die too? It doesn't make sense.

Its not that I was unaware of it, I wanted to read the SCRIPTURE in CONTEXT, as most nonbelievers that I encounter like to take things out of context. And as i read it, the scripture did exactly what I thought it was going to do, and that is show God being a disciplinarian and a judge, as he always does to evil people. As far as this appeal to emotion that you are exhibiting, tough luck. The Amorites went to war, the Amorite people could have escaped if they wanted to. Just like some of the Iraqis fled during the American invasion. Those that stayed wanted to stay, so, they got the results of staying. And this act of judgement was also do to the SINS of the Amorite people, in which all of them took part in, so all of them deserved due punishment. So this pity party you have is not going to work.

Even in modern wars, civilian casualties carried out intentionally is considered murder. Of course what Moses supposedly did is murder, non-combatants, EVERY ONE OF THEM! Didn't matter how old, didn't matter what they did, what they supported, if they were in the cities at the time the Israelites entered them they were dead. This is genocide on par with if not exceeding the Nazi genocide.

Well, on the Christian view, when children die they go to heaven with God. So the children that were killed, you dont have to worry abou them, they are with the Creator. That only leaves men and women, and undoubtedly, all of them participated in acts of abomination, and God could not tolerate it, therefore, he had the Isralites carry out his act of judgment. So as I said, this crybaby stuff isn't going to work. God got rid of evil people to make way for his chosen nation.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No it doesn't even if I agree with the notion that absolute objective laws exist, subjective interpretations and subjective morality still exists. They are real things, the only thing that is up for debate is whether absolute objective laws exist. Seriously, if Christianity is right and all that, I still have my subjective morality it would just be wrong.

There is no sense is talking about morality any longer. All i keep getting is a subjective opinion on your part. You judge God based on your own standards, so who made your standards right? It is circular.

According to Australian law, yes. Also, what about the 13-18 year olds?

Well, them too. From the looks of things, someone in this conversation frequently attend brothels lol.

Not me? How was I appealing to population? I was stating a fact, many people, everyone I know personally do not support and are offended by the notion of someone walking into a strangers home and killing all of it's inhabitants.

And you accused me of appealing to population when i stated a fact also, that over a billion people think the bible is morally good, as opposed to you. The pot is calling the kettle black.

One of them was, it's a shame you didn't bother to read it. I don't even care that you didn't respond, the least you could have done was read it.

Well, crap happens

What? How was it a delusion? Are you saying that everyone that is mistaken is deluded? If I see someone or something, and think it is something that it is not, I am deluded? This just massively redefines the term delusion. Either way, the Police officers intent was deception, in the same way God's intent was deception. He goaded people into a scenario where they would believe or continue to believe something that was untrue. If you don't consider this deceptive behavior, what do you think the definition of deception is?

I refuse to get suckered back to this conversation. You win. Just spare me of it.

I still maintain God is a liar, I just want you to get the facts straight, I didn't say that if someone is deluded that they are being lied to. I said that God specifically in this case lied to people by deluding them into believing or continuing to believe something that was not true. His intent was deception and that's what makes him a liar.

Ok, you think God is a liar, I think otherwise. There you go.

Very... ahhhh... modern? 1996 is the most recent quote there and then 1986 and that ends up at 1933? Really? This is the best you could do?

LOL, First of all, the 1933 quote is from Arthur Eddington who was a famous astrophysics and it was during the time that universe was first observed to be expanding. This was during a time that about 10 years prior, everyone thought the universe was static and eternal, and this observation blew the lid off of the concept of a infinite universe. This was one of the greatest discoveries in scientific history. Second, we dont need "modern" quotes from physicists stating that the universe began to exist, because as of right now it is a scientific fact. Nowadays they are working on attempting to explain how and why the universe did in fact begin to exist, which is why you have all of these crazy cosmological models out there floating around. So now it isnt a matter of "if", it is a matter of why and how. The quotes were from during a time where empirical discoveries were still being made. So you probably wont find any new quotes out there suggesting it, because it is already a empirical fact, so if someone said it now, it would be "duh, tell us something we dont know". But go ahead, start a new thread about this.

OK well fortunately the most recent piece doesn't conflict with what I am trying to say. i never stated that the universe did not begin to exist, i object to what you think that implies though. You think it means that the singularity came into existence.

It does mean the singularity came in to existence. For the seventh time, no one is suggesting that the singularity was out there sitting and waiting to expand. The singularity wasn't out there for this infinite amount of time that you seem to think it is. You are sadly mistaken if you believe this. All STEM began to exist.

This is false, the beginning of the universe is marked as the expansion of the singularity which means that the singularity already existed at the beginning of the universe. So the only relatively modern evidence you gave does nothing to support your notion of the singularity coming into existence.

THE SINGULARITY existed but it didnt exist independently of the expansion. You are thinking that the singularity was there for all of those years, stationary. Then for some reason, it expanded to what we call "universe". This is a false representation. The singularity "appeared" and from the very moment it appeared it expanded, simultaenously. That is why general relativity breaks down at the singularity, because there was no space, time, or matter to be dealt with. That is why John Barrow and Frank Tipler said in the quote, "literally nothing existed before the singularity." By "before", he means no STEM.

Yet God can effect nothing? How? Nothing doesn't have the property that allows things to be effected. It has no properties, no attributes. How can God create any effect at all out of nothing?

I dont know. But the bigger question is how can nothing create something?

 

[Thief]

The highlighted passage wasn't hawkins, sorry

Agreed.

My point was that conclusions about what occurred prior to expansion are unwarranted, we simply don't know what was happening before expansion occurred.

The portion I highlighted I did intend to rebuttal.

Sorry my post appeared to assume the Hawking's quoted to have continued.
But I've seen the documentaries of his work, with him in the forefront,
speaking as it were.
Yes he tries to say it can all happen without God.
God is not 'necessary'.

Of course asking science to explain anything prior to the singularity won't work.
Science can't go there.

So as I said in previous postings...it's theological.
No equation....no experiment....no photo...no fingerprint.

You have to decide for yourself....about God.

Are we also decided about the Carpenter?
or has this thread run itself thoroughly into digression?

 

[filthy tugboat]

The portion I highlighted I did intend to rebuttal.

Sorry my post appeared to assume the Hawking's quoted to have continued.
But I've seen the documentaries of his work, with him in the forefront,
speaking as it were.
Yes he tries to say it can all happen without God.
God is not 'necessary'.

Of course asking science to explain anything prior to the singularity won't work.
Science can't go there.

So as I said in previous postings...it's theological.
No equation....no experiment....no photo...no fingerprint.

You have to decide for yourself....about God.

Why is it theological? I know some people try to suggest that God made the universe or something like that but only that answer is theological, the question itself need nor be so.

Are we also decided about the Carpenter?
or has this thread run itself thoroughly into digression?

Which carpenter?

 

[Thief]

Why is it theological? I know some people try to suggest that God made the universe or something like that but only that answer is theological, the question itself need nor be so.



Which carpenter?

This far in the topic and you ask as you do?

 

[markymark]

because man is born sinful - since adam sinned and Jesus was without sin - its all in the bible - read this

2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV - God made him who had no sin to be sin ...

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Jesus took our sin , so when God looks at born again Christians he says the righteousness of a sinless Jesus.

 

[markymark]

if jesus died an old man and of natural causes, was he really god?
why does a god have to be murdered/sacrificed in order for god to be god?
but wait a second...how can god die...?

he died a human death and was raised again after 3 days - its in the bible.

 

[LaaIlahaIllAllah]

Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God?

I'm pretty sure Christians see him as both 100% God and 100% Man at the same time and not 50/50.

But i dunno the Christian perspective of the answer to your question, sorry.