• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The FLOOD, God's Great Failure?

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I only post the following in light of the contention that god is infallible and can do no wrong.

Genesis 6:5-7 (NKJV)
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have
created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
before%20the%20flood%20B_zpsneyu10we.png




Now if anyone sees the flood as a success please point it out.

.
One point you missed. God had to rid the world of the "angels that sinned ( Jude 6; 2Peter 2:4)" and their offspring the Nephilim (Genesis 6:1-4), which had hybrid Angelic/human DNA.

They would've out-produced and dominated humans!
A drastic situation called for a drastic measure!
 

arthra

Baha'i
Now if anyone sees the flood as a success please point it out.

Skwin:

In my view the flood story is a common one in the various ancient cultures.. Prior to the Bible story of the flood you had a Sumerian flood story:

The Sumerian Flood Myth: Epic of Gilgamesh

My view is that the flood story was commonly held by ancient middle eastern people.. The Bible story added a story of Noah and a spiritual crisis. The Ark was a symbol of the covenant with God and Noah as prophet attempted to attract the people to the Covenant to save them.. so it was not a case as you suggested in your opening post.

"The statement in 'Seven Days of Creation' certainly cannot be considered authoritative or correct. The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Bahá'í News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 508)
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
One point you missed. God had to rid the world of the "angels that sinned ( Jude 6; 2Peter 2:4)" and their offspring the Nephilim (Genesis 6:1-4), which had hybrid Angelic/human DNA.

They would've out-produced and dominated humans!
A drastic situation called for a drastic measure!
And the god of Abraham god couldn't do this without killing everything else? Hardly sounds like an omnipotent god to me, Not at all. In fact, if this is the case he comes across as a pretty incompetent god.

.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Skwin:

In my view the flood story is a common one in the various ancient cultures.. Prior to the Bible story of the flood you had a Sumerian flood story:

The Sumerian Flood Myth: Epic of Gilgamesh

My view is that the flood story was commonly held by ancient middle eastern people.. The Bible story added a story of Noah and a spiritual crisis. The Ark was a symbol of the covenant with God and Noah as prophet attempted to attract the people to the Covenant to save them.. so it was not a case as you suggested in your opening post.

"The statement in 'Seven Days of Creation' certainly cannot be considered authoritative or correct. The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Bahá'í News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 508)

If you don't buy the story, fine; however, millions of people do, and it's to them my post is addressed.

.
 

Shia Islam

Quran and Ahlul-Bayt a.s.
Premium Member
I only post the following in light of the contention that god is infallible and can do no wrong.

Genesis 6:5-7 (NKJV)
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have
created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
before%20the%20flood%20B_zpsneyu10we.png




Now if anyone sees the flood as a success please point it out.

.

As time passes my belief in debates weakens...
As I found that rarely people will consider the view points of the others.. Everyone has his view..

So I am not here to debate..
But to point out that the picture of God in the bible is not shared by the Muslim..

God in the bible will do things and will regret his action etc.

God in Islam is all knowing all powerful ...
Nothing is similar to him.

In Shia Islam in particular...God is not material..Man can't see God..

The topic is wide so i will stop here.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Miller Urey was done over 50 years ago, no living organism as a result. It doesn't really signify anything.
What??
It should not have been expected to result in a living organism... It was designed to test what, if any, of the building blocks of life could be reconstructed from a ProtoEarth-like environment. As it is, dozens of more complex chemical volatiles were produced, including 25 amino acids, only 20 of which are required for life on Earth to function. Since then, via exploration and further experimentation, we've produced more monomers and organics, including 3 of the 4 parts of an RNA chain, and discovered complex organic molecules on nearly ever planetary body that we've visited, all of which further supports the idea that the natural occurrence of these compounds from simpler parts is not only common, but abundant.

A single experiment should never be expected to answer all questions - they simply support or reject hypothesis, determining the viability of future experimentation and the level or "correctness" in current understandings. Miller-Urey signified quite a lot.

The only "constructed"living organism there is was developed as a 10 year effort by numerous bio chemists, and other specialists, but it still required the introduction of naturally occurring DNA to function. Once again, you are trying to confuse the issue.
I'm not confusing anything. As I've stated, we don't know exactly how Abiogenesis occurred. But we've solved about 90% of the puzzle and study and testing is still ongoing. What more could you possibly ask for?

You're making the claim that it abiogenesis absolutely cannot occur, and you're citing an out of place scientific Law to support you. If anyone is confused, my man, it's you.

First energy is matter and vice versa, you know that. From the singularity at the big bang, energy and then matter was created (unknown how) and following the laws of physics all unliving matter was produced. Information was not required

Ummm...No. Information is required for everything. Absolutely everything.

phx_enhanced_119_1DC6.gif

For reference, here's a handy little gif of clouds blowing over the Martian surface, occasionally loosing little pockets of snow over the course of a few hours. Are you saying there's no information in all of that happening? Nothing is being processed? Nothing is being converted from one from into another via chemical and/or natural processes?

Matter is stuff. It has definable parts. Energy is something that matter has. They are connected, but they are not one in the same. That's the easiest way to explain it.

All "stuff", everywhere, ever, can be broken down into parts. Each of those parts contains information, regardless of how you want to use the word for your argument. (What is Water without Hydrogen and Oxygen? Where did Hydrogen and Oxygen come from?, How were they fused?, etc)

Again, Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia

Information implies order - and order cannot exist under your understanding of the 2nd Law...

The line between biotic and nonbiotic processes is very thin, and we (humans) are working every day to further define that boundary and to see what makes it all tick.

Your example of a snowflake, the creation of the planets, the creation of our planet was the result of Einsteins relativity, and the result of other laws of physics, nothing more.

What?

None of it should have been possible, under your use of the 2nd Law... That was the whole point.
Here you are admitting that it can occur driven by nothing but the Laws of Physics, (forgetting the chemical aspect of all this for some unknown reason) yet you're curiously excluding the origin of biotic processes from the realm of possibility - why is that?

We've pretty well established that the way you're using the 2nd Law doesn't apply here (to either planetary accretion, weather processes, or evolutionary biology). Can we agree on that?

Everything in our solar system, from dirt to snowflakes to people, is the result of a mind-boggingly enormous combination of complex organic and inorganic compounds. I could just as easily say that the same natural processes that produce dirt on a planet's surface, flowing water through it's valleys, and precipitations from it's clouds also produce vegetation, animals, and people "as a result of the Laws of Physics - nothing more." Would I be wrong?

The universe, being a closed system, will reach a state of total entropy, and die.
Maybe - unless we discover that it's not, in fact, a closed system...

Expansion isn't slowing down. It's speeding up. Why?
(Neither of us will have a decent answer to this question)

Now, to the creation of life. There are no laws of physics that will create a computer from it's raw ingredients, then program it. Gravity won't, inertia won't, any law you can name will not. The computer I am typing on, a fairly modern one, is very simple when compared to a living cell. Once again, here is the point, energy of any type, whether rushing toward entropy or being continuously supplied in an open system, cannot by the laws of physics create detailed information, it can go so far, then no further.

Natural processes are pragmatic - not linear. They can produce complexity, as we've covered already. But they can just as equally produce simplicity in order to solve a "problem".

Most creationists get caught up on the seeming impossibility of very complex things to arise - let alone become something that processes data, which is what your above paragraph proclaims. It is, however, like your previous claims, simply untrue.

Sticking with the computer analogy, imagine the experiments like Miller-Urey produce parts, not amino acids. Your standard for success is a computer, because you've used a working one and can't possibly imagine how something so complex could come from a box of black and white paint, plastic scraps, random and loose wiring, and a junk pile of solder and metal... Those things, on their own, aren't a computer, admittedly.

But those experiments produced more than the 26 letters of the alphabet - they also produced the physical keys on your keypad. They produced more than just the parts needed to make a computer - they actually produced a power cable, a CPU, and a tower. They actually produced more than just the parts needed to make a computer - but, you're right. They didn't actually make a working computer...

Like with the creationists who don't realize that accepting "micro-evolution" means accepting Evolutionary Theory - you're confused by your own poor arguments. You're conflating the complexity of a cell and devaluing the complexity of what you consider to be a simple natural process, like water crystallization upon freezing, or types of dirt on the crust of an orbiting celestail body.

A conglomeration of chemicals in a primordial sea cannot combine naturally in any fashion to write a detailed and functional code for a computer, then produce the computer to read the already written code. Again, life is much more complicated as to the information required, as is an organism more complicated than a computer.

If the primordial soup can create all the parts for that computer, and then some - so why can't it do more?

The line between life and not-life

The second law prevails when it comes to life, the various laws produce more matter in more order till it all breaks down at the information stage. All the chemicals in all the universe combined in any environment in any way can not produce information to make an organism function properly.

And yet, here we are...

That's a very bold claim, especially considering that it's based on something that you don't know very much about.

Tell me, what natural mechanism or scientific law exists which stops the process of information change and adaptation from occurring, at any level. What you're arguing for is that the 2nd Law applies here, only when you want it to, and that it doesn't apply at other times, both of which are equally arbitrary.

It is possible that there may be a natural explanation , but it is extremely unlikely, especially as research advances on genetics, the complexity of DNA, and the complexity of the cell, that makes the natural production of this information less likely. The tenets of science require that a theory be verified by observation, application, and reproduction. NONE of these have occurred with abiogenesis
That first line is very contradictory to the bold claim you just made in the previous paragragh, don't you think? You first said it was not possible- and then you said it may be possible. Which is it?

You also just said that "NONE" of these scientific requirements have been observed, yet my last two response to you are filled with links showing that 90% of it has been observed, applied, and reproduced... Interesting.
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
What??
It should not have been expected to result in a living organism... It was designed to test what, if any, of the building blocks of life could be reconstructed from a ProtoEarth-like environment. As it is, dozens of more complex chemical volatiles were produced, including 25 amino acids, only 20 of which are required for life on Earth to function. Since then, via exploration and further experimentation, we've produced more monomers and organics, including 3 of the 4 parts of an RNA chain, and discovered complex organic molecules on nearly ever planetary body that we've visited, all of which further supports the idea that the natural occurrence of these compounds from simpler parts is not only common, but abundant.

A single experiment should never be expected to answer all questions - they simply support or reject hypothesis, determining the viability of future experimentation and the level or "correctness" in current understandings. Miller-Urey signified quite a lot.


I'm not confusing anything. As I've stated, we don't know exactly how Abiogenesis occurred. But we've solved about 90% of the puzzle and study and testing is still ongoing. What more could you possibly ask for?

You're making the claim that it abiogenesis absolutely cannot occur, and you're citing an out of place scientific Law to support you. If anyone is confused, my man, it's you.



Ummm...No. Information is required for everything. Absolutely everything.

Matter is stuff. It has definable parts. Energy is something that matter has. They are connected, but they are not one in the same. That's the easiest way to explain it.

All "stuff", everywhere, ever, can be broken down into parts. Each of those parts contains information, regardless of how you want to use the word for your argument. (What is Water without Hydrogen and Oxygen? Where did Hydrogen and Oxygen come from?, How were they fused?, etc)

Again, Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia

Information implies order - and order cannot exist under your understanding of the 2nd Law...

The line between biotic and nonbiotic processes is very thin, and we (humans) are working every day to further define that boundary and to see what makes it all tick.



What?

None of it should have been possible, under your use of the 2nd Law... That was the whole point.
Here you are admitting that it can occur driven by nothing but the Laws of Physics, (forgetting the chemical aspect of all this for some unknown reason) yet you're curiously excluding the origin of biotic processes from the realm of possibility - why is that?

We've pretty well established that the way you're using the 2nd Law doesn't apply here (to either planetary accretion, weather processes, or evolutionary biology). Can we agree on that?

Everything in our solar system, from dirt to snowflakes to people, is the result of a mind-boggingly enormous combination of complex organic and inorganic compounds. I could just as easily say that the same natural processes that produce dirt on a planet's surface, flowing water through it's valleys, and precipitations from it's clouds also produce vegetation, animals, and people "as a result of the Laws of Physics - nothing more." Would I be wrong?


Maybe - unless we discover that it's not, in fact, a closed system...

Expansion isn't slowing down. It's speeding up. Why?
(Neither of us will have a decent answer to this question)



Natural processes are pragmatic - not linear. They can produce complexity, as we've covered already. But they can just as equally produce simplicity in order to solve a "problem".

Most creationists get caught up on the seeming impossibility of very complex things to arise - let alone become something that processes data, which is what your above paragraph proclaims. It is, however, like your previous claims, simply untrue.

Sticking with the computer analogy, imagine the experiments like Miller-Urey produce parts, not amino acids. Your standard for success is a computer, because you've used a working one and can't possibly imagine how something so complex could come from a box of black and white paint, plastic scraps, random and loose wiring, and a junk pile of solder and metal... Those things, on their own, aren't a computer, admittedly.

But those experiments produced more than the 26 letters of the alphabet - they also produced the physical keys on your keypad. They produced more than just the parts needed to make a computer - they actually produced a power cable, a CPU, and a tower. They actually produced more than just the parts needed to make a computer - but, you're right. They didn't actually make a working computer...

Like with the creationists who don't realize that accepting "micro-evolution" means accepting Evolutionary Theory - you're confused by your own poor arguments. You're conflating the complexity of a cell and devaluing the complexity of what you consider to be a simple natural process, like water crystallization upon freezing, or types of dirt on the crust of an orbiting celestail body.



If the primordial soup can create all the parts for that computer, and then some - so why can't it do more?

The line between life and not-life



And yet, here we are...

That's a very bold claim, especially considering that it's based on something that you don't know very much about.

Tell me, what natural mechanism or scientific law exists which stops the process of information change and adaptation from occurring, at any level. What you're arguing for is that the 2nd Law applies here, only when you want it to, and that it doesn't apply at other times, both of which are equally arbitrary.


That first line is very contradictory to the bold claim you just made in the previous paragragh, don't you think? You first said it was not possible- and then you said it may be possible. Which is it?

You also just said that "NONE" of these scientific requirements have been observed, yet my last two response to you are filled with links showing that 90% of it has been observed, applied, and reproduced... Interesting.
You say much, but actually not very much. You apparently have difficulty in determining the difference between information required in a process, and a process that doesn't require information. Gravity doesn't require information to operate, an unsuspended object falls period. Miller Urey produced naturally occurring amino acids ( in an alleged ancient atmosphere that most accept now as wrong) . You must realize that amino acids are not life, anymore than macaroni and cheese is living. Further, you prevaricate on the central issue, information is not arbitrary, unspecific, or a result of chance. In the case of abiogenesis, one must assume that blind chemical processes in a manner totally unknown, created a comprehensive set of extremely detailed operating instructions for a living organism, before the organism was created. Do the chemicals think and say, " lets write this plan, so the primordial creature we are going to produce can survive in the environment we have, exist comfortably, can oxygenate, reproduce, eliminate e etc., etc ? You say that "90% of abiogenesis has been observed". Really ? There is an old song that says " nothing from nothing, leaves nothing " abiogenesis is the creation of live from non living compounds, you either observe it, or you don't. Until it occurs and is observed, you have no way of knowing whether the 90% you allege has been observed has any validity whatsoever. So, a natural process creates, by accident, computer parts, that by accident fit together perfectly to form a working computer. I'll buy that for purposes of discussion. Please tell me who wrote the software for this accidental computer, before the parts were made, so the computer could run the software ? I have an open mind, or try to, I am not dogmatic. To this point, abiogenesis is a myth. Much like the Chicago cubs for 107 years. Every year their fans would look at the team roster, the statistics, the schedules and conclude that these meant the team was going to win the world series, they were wrong every time, they didn't. The laws of probability said that in a relatively short period ( by the cosmic scale ) they would, after a century + they did. The probabilities of abiogenesis are so remote, so high against it, that it dips into virtual impossibility. So, there MAY be a natural explanation, and I haven't closed my mind to this most unlikely of all unlikely possibilities, completely. However, I am aware that I am much more likely to hear a coyote in my back yard quote Macbetth perfectly in English, with an Albanian accent.





'
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
You apparently have difficulty in determining the difference between information required in a process, and a process that doesn't require information.

All naturally occurring forces/properties are neutral without information with which to affect. I'm aware of the distinction. But I challenge you to show me an example of the latter not bound by the former. Your gravity scenario fails, for example, because there are bits of prerequisite information at every stage of it. Gravity has measurable and determinable effects based on variables. It is a force that we are aware of because of information - not in lieu of it., which is true of all naturally occurring phenomena, of which life is included.

Gravity doesn't require information to operate, an unsuspended object falls period.

And the formation of said object, and the rate at which it falls, are dependent upon what?

Miller Urey produced naturally occurring amino acids ( in an alleged ancient atmosphere that most accept now as wrong) . You must realize that amino acids are not life, anymore than macaroni and cheese is living.

The atmosphere has been tweaked many times, the experiment repeated by various outlets, and differing quantities of amino acids, monomers, polymers, and other organic junk have been produce. Even if you discard the initial experiement entirely based on the initial criticisms of the protoEarth atmosphere used, the results are still the same, if not better than originally thought. The point of the whole thing was to show that the building blocks of life could have been created naturally, spontaneously, using primitive and simple parts. It's further validated through the observation of these organics on the surface of various objects scattered all over the solar system.

Tholins on Pluto?
nh-spider_insetannotated-revised2-1-432x600.jpg__1240x600_q85_subject_location-216%2C300_subsampling-2.jpg


Same processes - different places and environments.

I'll address the amino acids/macaroni thing below...

Further, you prevaricate on the central issue, information is not arbitrary, unspecific, or a result of chance.
How is it not?
The difference here is that you're only considering life processes as viable for the processing of information. I'm simply claiming that it's an extrapolation of what every other natural system does - life is no different, really, than what we see naturally occurring in amino acid soups that self organize, right?

I'll admit that amino acids aren't life. Sure.
And Macaroni & Cheese isn't a living organism. (But parts of the cheese can certainly be alive...)
But if you throw a bunch of amino acids together and, through unguided processes, they form peptides and proteins, thus becoming something other than what they started, what does that look like, at least simply? Introduce a few more chemical processes and you'll have a mixture of nucleotides and nucleic acids, amino acids, proteins, and peptides, etc... Those are all the parts necessary for what process, exactly?

In the case of abiogenesis, one must assume that blind chemical processes in a manner totally unknown, created a comprehensive set of extremely detailed operating instructions for a living organism, before the organism was created. Do the chemicals think and say, " lets write this plan, so the primordial creature we are going to produce can survive in the environment we have, exist comfortably, can oxygenate, reproduce, eliminate e etc., etc ?

I've shown you examples of blind chemical processes producing everything but the organism itself, which is little more than a combination of those parts in a functioning way... The life aspect, as has been stated, only needs to be pragmatic in order to survive and replicate.

I linked a video in my last response. I think you should watch it.

You say that "90% of abiogenesis has been observed". Really ? There is an old song that says " nothing from nothing, leaves nothing " abiogenesis is the creation of live from non living compounds, you either observe it, or you don't. Until it occurs and is observed, you have no way of knowing whether the 90% you allege has been observed has any validity whatsoever.

In each of the examples I've given you, and in almost every one of my response to you, you're able to see something complex arising from a simpler version of something more primitive. At no point in any of this conversation have I started with nothing - that's a state of being that has never existed.

What percentage would you prefer that I use? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%? I used the 90% based on the amount of necessary cellular building blocks that have been created out of simpler, non-living material. The last 10%, admittedly, is more tricky and a bit more elusive. If you wanted to use a quote, I'd recommend this one: "We'd be done if not for lack of finishing..."

So, a natural process creates, by accident, computer parts, that by accident fit together perfectly to form a working computer. I'll buy that for purposes of discussion. Please tell me who wrote the software for this accidental computer, before the parts were made, so the computer could run the software ?

Like I've said multiple times, and what I think you're missing in this whole conversation, is the fact that information was part of the building process every step of the way. It didn't just suddenly come out of nowhere. Parts A, B, C, D, E, F, & G all came together and suddenly you have ABCDEFG, which is inherently more complex than each individual letter. It can also produce multiple functioning subsets, like AB, AD, AGE, ACE, FACE, CAGED, etc. The simile of the alphabet, computer, or cell changes nothing. It's the same principle.

I have an open mind, or try to, I am not dogmatic. To this point, abiogenesis is a myth. Much like the Chicago cubs for 107 years. Every year their fans would look at the team roster, the statistics, the schedules and conclude that these meant the team was going to win the world series, they were wrong every time, they didn't. The laws of probability said that in a relatively short period ( by the cosmic scale ) they would, after a century + they did. The probabilities of abiogenesis are so remote, so high against it, that it dips into virtual impossibility. So, there MAY be a natural explanation, and I haven't closed my mind to this most unlikely of all unlikely possibilities, completely. However, I am aware that I am much more likely to hear a coyote in my back yard quote Macbetth perfectly in English, with an Albanian accent.

It's an educated guess - not a myth. Claims of absolution are a myth; the concept is not.

Your Cubs analogy makes a pretty good point. It was postulated for a long time that they were capable of the accomplishment - and eventually they were validated. All of the statistics made it seem like it was a sure thing. And it took a frustratingly long time for them to figure it out. But year after year they made strides in the right direction until suddenly, with just the right mixture of parts, the solution was discovered and the feat accomplished... ;)
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Gravity doesn't need information to work. The variables don't need information to work. YOU extrapolate information to measure. Information was not part of the alleged building process. It was all based upon properties inherent in the matter ( oh, BTW I failed to point out that in your last post you denied the theory of relativity E=MC squared, energy is matter and matter is energy. Better take that up with Einstein ) water has no information. It is simply the combination of molecules. Molecules have no information, they combine or unbind based upon their properties. At no point within them is any information found, nor is there any mechanism within them to process information. You are proposing that these molecules came together to produce substances, that came together to produce a living organism. Presupposing that by chance a coded operating system was first created that would allow this organism to function, then the organism was created to perfectly utilize the existing operating system, all created by natural processes. Have you studied what is involved here ? Lets assume that your processes were able to produce bits of DNA with information encoded, all of these bits would have to come together in a correct helix, in exactly the right sequence, to operate a living creature. Hundreds of different bits of information, millions of millions of different combinations, with only one being right. These chains must adhere, in order for the creature to function. Building the strand is dependent on the environment, no ozone layer, can't happen, too many x-rays, can't happen, on and on it goes . So, somehow, chemicals produce pieces of DNA, all different, encoded with instructions like, eat, breathe, mate, be this big, live this long, these instructions being conveyed by very specific organic processes, that must also be encoded to operate. We won't ask how the chemicals did this. Now, they are all floating about and conditions become absolutely perfect for them to adhere to each other. How they know to take the proper helix shape, we won't ask. Then, out of millions of millions of combinations, the right combination is found. Now, the organism must be created that has a mechanism to read the written code, in the perfect order, on the self sticking strand of DNA. But this is all fantasy, no one has any idea how chemicals without "intelligent design ", i.e. maybe some scientist , can combine naturally to create one tiny bit of DNA encoded with specific operating information. We will just have to agree to disagree on this, I won't make one concession in support of your argument, as you will not re my argument. Peace to you. Oops, forgot, the big bang theory proposes that everything there is was ultimately created by the bang, nothing existed before the bang. They propose a microscopic singularity as the beginning of the bang, but "singularity" is cosmology speak for we don't know. So there was a state where there was nothing, there was no time no space no energy no matter no laws of physics, nothing, then there was
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
The Bible also says he created evil, which I assume you feel is a real winner.
Please share the scripture where it says God created evil! Also tell me what the Bible language meaning of the word translated evil is, and tell me if all Bible translations use that word
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Please share the scripture where it says God created evil!
Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​

Also tell me what the Bible language meaning of the word translated evil is,
The "Bible language meaning"? What the heck is that?

and tell me if all Bible translations use that word
No they don't, but a good number of them do. (Thinking of doing some cherry picking?) Here are some of them:


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)​
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Geneva Study Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
"I am Jehovah, and none else; Forming light, and creating darkness, Making peace, and creating evil: I Jehovah am the author of all these things."

.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
They didn't need insight, they knew exactly what was right and what was wrong, very simple. They were aware of the consequences. They weren't children, they were highly intelligent beings who were able to make rational choices without being influenced by previous experience, genetics or other factors. So they simply chose not to obey, they weren't "set up", they were given perfect freedom, then chose to throw it away

This is called blaming the victim.

Nonbelievers have a better handle on the ethics of the story. We are not compelled to whitewash it like the believer is. Your principle assumption in interpreting your Bible is that your god is good, loving, kind, and just. So, you force the story to conform to that, and give the deity a walk.

With omniscience and omnipotence comes omni-responsibility. How do you get around that?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Good or evil wan't the issue. Obeying your creator was the issue. It is irrelevant as to whether they knew good from evil, they knew to follow what they were told. They substituted their judgement ( not knowledge ) for God's judgement and instruction. It was a relationship based upon faith and trust, not knowledge. They had the ability to choose because they were free beings. They knew exactly what they were doing, they were presuming on Gods mercy, without considering Gods sense of justice. Just doing what they were told in faith and trust would have stopped the problem before it began. Only their choice made it good or evil.

Why should the kids trust or believe that god? It left them alone in the garden with a serpent that God cast out of heaven and sicked on them and their world. They had to choose between two competing advisors. On what basis could they make a choice given a lack of knowledge of good and evil?

You seem to consider blind obedience to this god the highest virtue. Why would the kids fee that way?
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​


The "Bible language meaning"? What the heck is that?


No they don't, but a good number of them do. (Thinking of doing some cherry picking?) Here are some of them:


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)​
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Geneva Study Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
"I am Jehovah, and none else; Forming light, and creating darkness, Making peace, and creating evil: I Jehovah am the author of all these things."

.
My Bible says "calamity" not evil, and if you knew much about the Bible, you would know that it wasn't originally written in English! The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words can be translated more than one way, and the word doesn't mean exactly what we interpret it as meaning! Take the word "hate"; Leah was called the "hated wife" of Jacob! The word here means "loved less" not that she was hated the way we think of that word
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​


The "Bible language meaning"? What the heck is that?


No they don't, but a good number of them do. (Thinking of doing some cherry picking?) Here are some of them:


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)​
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Geneva Study Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
"I am Jehovah, and none else; Forming light, and creating darkness, Making peace, and creating evil: I Jehovah am the author of all these things."

.
You selected all the scriptures that say evil, however I just went online and lots say "disaster" and "calamity
Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​


The "Bible language meaning"? What the heck is that?


No they don't, but a good number of them do. (Thinking of doing some cherry picking?) Here are some of them:


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)​
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Geneva Study Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
"I am Jehovah, and none else; Forming light, and creating darkness, Making peace, and creating evil: I Jehovah am the author of all these things."

.
I looked it up online and there are many translations which don't say evil but say "calamity" and "disaster" Why did you only select translations which say "evil" when many don't use this word? And it could be argued: "Why would God create disaster?" I would have to research it to know the context of this verse! You can't just isolate a verse and claim it means something without considering context, but God does bring "disaster" and calamity upon some people, but there is always a reason for it! Some of them are bad people, so he has destroyed nations in times past! Some people just suffer calamity because their behavior brings on it, like if someone smokes they may get Cancer! Even righteous people suffer and you need to know the Bible well to understand why God allows this! As far as him "creating evil" in the sense that you mean, he only created perfect creatures, the angels and Adam and Eve but he made them with free will! Satan made himself bad and then he brought other angels and people with him, and they practiced their freewill and became disobedient!
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
Why should the kids trust or believe that god? It left them alone in the garden with a serpent that God cast out of heaven and sicked on them and their world. They had to choose between two competing advisors. On what basis could they make a choice given a lack of knowledge of good and evil?

You seem to consider blind obedience to this god the highest virtue. Why would the kids fee that way?
Their selfishness and greed is what caused them to disobey God, not because they were confused about whom (who?) to follow! God did not sic the Serpent on them! You are speaking in exaggeration! I like it when people talk to each other without exaggeration and sarcasm, as it is more intellectually honest
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
This is called blaming the victim.

Nonbelievers have a better handle on the ethics of the story. We are not compelled to whitewash it like the believer is. Your principle assumption in interpreting your Bible is that your god is good, loving, kind, and just. So, you force the story to conform to that, and give the deity a walk.

With omniscience and omnipotence comes omni-responsibility. How do you get around that?
God is all knowing but he can choose to use that ability or not! He can see into the future but often doesn't choose to use the ability, doesn't want to interfere with free will! I am sitting in a chair right now, and I CAN stand up but choose not to! God CAN see how things will turn out, but doesn't always choose to
 
Top