Atheist diary at the GWT

[BobRyan]

My argument in the OP is not "Dawkins proves the Bible" - rather it is that the Bible warning to the lost is - something to be informed about - something to take seriously.

My argument is that those Christians who "think it wise" to leave anyone who rejects God "in the dark" about Rev 20 - are simply placing a "lets all be friends until you get there" value above the "I actually care about people who might be in danger of the Rev 20 event - and so I try to warn them about it when the opportunity arises" solution.

If you were drinking contaminated water and your Christian friend knew it - but refused to inform you about it because they did not care about your well being enough to risk your being offended if they suggested that the water in your glass might harm you -- would you really see that as a "good thing".

Some would.

Some would not.

Clearly I am in the second group.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gerr]

Quote:

Because evolution is claimed to be based on science that could explain the origin of life while creation is based on faith. Science has no use for the supernatural, is that right? If it cannot give an account of the origin of life, then it is an inadequate hypothesis, and creationsim would be a better hypothesis because it is more comprehensive.

What? It's like saying that some boxes falling in your closed is better explained via supernatural means of ghosts doing it, because it's more comprehensive.

Except God is not a ghost playing tricks. God is the author of the laws that govern the order in nature. If nature were the product of chance or random events instead of intelligent design, THEN we would see things that would appear like ghosts playing tricks.

[fccool]

Quote:

Except God is not a ghost playing tricks. God is the author of the laws that govern the order in nature.

This is what you BELIEVE. There should be "I believe" disclaimer in front of every statement like that

Quote:

If nature were the product of chance or random events instead of intelligent design, THEN we would see things that would appear like ghosts playing tricks.

Natural selection is not random. It's narrowed process that selects for certain patterns. The easiest way to demonstrate is to have a bucket with a spherical hole on the bottom, and bunch of cubes and a sphere in the bucket. If we shake it long enough, eventually the sphere will make it out of that hole, because it's selected for. The process of such selection may have some "randomness" but it is not random.

In fact random is merely a construct of mind that lacks information. For you, Chinese language is random sounds. For Chinese, it's fairly ordered and understandable.

It's exactly why people made up gods in the past. For them, with lack of information things appeared random, and yet they wanted to explain them in meaningful ways. That's why they personified these events the best they could from human point of view. That's why God of the Bible has human Characteristics, and described in human terms, with hands, mouth, breathing and etc.

[Gerr]

Who said, "God does not play with dice." Was it Einstein?

[SivartM]

Who said, "God does not play with dice." Was it Einstein?

Yes, Einstein who, like many other agnostic physicists, used the word "God" to metaphorically describe natural laws.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Who said, "God does not play with dice." Was it Einstein?

Yes, Einstein who, like many other agnostic physicists, used the word "God" to metaphorically describe natural laws.

Thank you for the confirmation.

Metaphorically? Did he say it was just a metaphor?

And have you ever seen a law not authored by someone?

[fccool]

Quote:

Thank you for the confirmation. Metaphorically? Did he say it was just a metaphor? And have you ever seen a law not authored by someone?

Gerry,

Your argument is akin to saying that plants need water, and I could say that there are plenty of water in the toilet, and I've never seen plants grow out of my toilet.

You absolutely ignore any other possibilities. You zero in on one, and you run with it, saying that all of the other are illogical.

Do you even consider the possibilities, and stop using this silly logic?

[BobRyan]

Since CARDW has several threads discussing the atheist POV vs the Gospel. Here is an interesting scenario.

The atheist stands at the Great White Throne in Rev 20 and writes in his diary.

Dear Diary -

1. Just found out that God is real and really did create the world in 7 days -- oops!

2. Just found out that God made laws for the entire universe and the penalty for rebellion was said to be the 2nd death.... oops!

3. Just found out that Adam and Eve were created sinless - chose to rebel against God's Law and so mankind was doomed to the 2nd death since they were the only two people on the planet...oops!

4. Just found out that Jesus Christ really was the Son of God and came to save mankind.... oops!

dear diary - I now realize that if the beginning concepts were all true even though I doubted and disbelieved them - there is the strongest likelihood that the end of the Bible is all true as well.... big OOPS!

[BobRyan]

How is it that you see the view that evolution has no need to explain origins unscientific? Do you understand what you are asking?

Let's say you have a TV in your house that you just bought with all of the furniture. You have a manual to the TV, but it does not have the make. The manual explains everything about how the TV works... does it make the idea of watching the TV unbearable for you? Does it invalidate the quality of the TV, or it's functionality... that you don't know where it came from?

Evolution explains functionality and diversity. It has no need to theorize on something that it can't possibly know or explain.

Quote:

Creation & evolution are two worldviews that account for origins.

Evolution is dragged into this by religious zealots. Evolution has no need to theorize about origins beyond the immediate context of what it's trying to explain. There are multiple possibilities, and SURPRISE! God creating primitive life is one of them. But, none of these are remotely testable, and we have to guess which one is the most plausible. While science can debate this issue, it has little consequence to currently established Theory of Evolution.

When Darwin formulated the theory, he was not seeking for alternative explanation for origin of the universe. He made a discovery that made him formulate a possible ways that we have a genetic diversity of species.

Classic shell-gaming.

Now for some facts from Darwin -

1. He admits that evolutionism and the Christian view of how all life has come to be on this planet during creation week - are not compatible.

So also do Dawkins, Meyers, Provine and a host of others agree to this key point.

So also does the SDA writer and prophet - Ellen White. Only in her case she says this is the view of it that God gave to her via direct inspiration. (For those here who just so happen to be SDA)

2. Atheist scientists such as Collin Patterson freely admit to the religious nature for the argument for evolutionism going far beyond "abiogenesis".

Your shell game supposes that the evolutionists wild fiction about abiogenesis is the only aspect of origins that can be discussed.

This is simply not the case. Origin of the Species is not a topic limited to "abiogenesis".

in Christ,

Bob

[fccool]

Quote:

Now for some facts from Darwin -

1. He admits that evolutionism and the Christian view of how all life has come to be on this planet during creation week - are not compatible.

So also do Dawkins, Meyers, Provine and a host of others agree to this key point.

I could likewise throw other names out there, like C.S. Lewis who seem to reconcile that theory just fine. It seems to me that you so quickly run to atheist views whenever you find them convenient for whatever it is that you believe.

Quote:

So also does the SDA writer and prophet - Ellen White. Only in her case she says this is the view of it that God gave to her via direct inspiration. (For those here who just so happen to be SDA)

I understand that you are so used to appeals to authority, that you seldom actually bring some arguments that don't depend on some variation of that fallacy.

Quote:

2. Atheist scientists such as Collin Patterson freely admit to the religious nature for the argument for evolutionism going far beyond "abiogenesis".

Your shell game supposes that the evolutionists wild fiction about abiogenesis is the only aspect of origins that can be discussed.

Its not a shell game, if you stop running to your cherry-picked authority figures and try to actually logically dissect the issue. I don't care about what other people believe or reject. I do care to follow their reasoning of believing or rejecting something.

You provide claims. You don't support it with any reasoning or logic. You keep pointing to Daniel, but you've yet to show me any specific fulfillment that goes beyond the possible historical observations (prophecy).

Explain to me, why was he able to name certain old-time rulers by name, and he gets to be so vague past certain period. Can you give me some specific things that you claim Daniel predicted with accuracy?

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Now for some facts from Darwin -

1. He admits that evolutionism and the Christian view of how all life has come to be on this planet during creation week - are not compatible.

So also do Dawkins, Meyers, Provine and a host of others agree to this key point.

I could likewise throw other names out there, like C.S. Lewis who seem to reconcile that theory just fine. It seems to me that you so quickly run to atheist views whenever you find them convenient for whatever it is that you believe.

[BobRyan]

2. Atheist scientists such as Collin Patterson freely admit to the religious nature for the argument for evolutionism going far beyond "abiogenesis".

Your shell game supposes that the evolutionists wild fiction about abiogenesis is the only aspect of origins that can be discussed.... hint even Darwin knew enough to include arguements for the "origins of the species" when making his case

[fccool]

Quote:

First of all I would argue that Darwin knew a thing or two about darwinism.

Darwin was not a theologian. It was his personal conviction that the theory is incompatible with LITERAL 6 DAY account of creation 6000 YEARS AGO.

Lewis did not understand the creation account to be a literal 6 day process, likewise there are plenty of Chirstians in the field who are evolutionary scientists.

In fact, many ID people... surprise! evolutionary scientists.

Quote:

Secondly - I like getting the atheist POV on distinctively atheist doctrines such as evolutionism - since they hold to the least conflicted position on that subject - of all evolutionists.

Evolution (you know, the theory) is not an atheist doctrine. It was not postulated by an atheist. It was originally postulated by a believer. Sure, many atheists take it as a reasonable, but I've already shown you that quite a bit of Christian, Muslim, and other religions accept and reconcile it. You are trying too hard.

Quote:

Thirdly - even Ellen White was told by God that the TE position is "the worst form of infidelity" because it is "infidelity in disguise" in 3SG 90-91 -- so why not go to the "undisguised form"?

Once again, you are trying too hard. How would you falsify or verify such claim?

You have to accept

[fccool]

Quote:

Every time an actual SDA appeals to some bible text or the "sola scriptura" Protestant argument - they are "appealing to authority". It is not logical fallacy to claim that God is an "authoritative" source -- as it turns out.

I think that Christian appealing to authority is a given, but what you did is appealing to authority of Darwin, and your other favorite people to quote to cover up [an apparent] inability to reason on the grounds of the argument itself.

Sure, you can BELIEVE that God is an authoritative source of the Bible, but it just it. I can believe that a certain person is ultimate authority on God, but it makes no difference if my arguments are lacking reasonable validity.

Quote:

Which gets back to that whole "why we are Christians thing" and trusting the "Word of God" given to mankind through His prophets in 2Pet 1:20-21. Therefore I was explicit in stating that that specific part of my post was just for those "who happen to be SDA" and not for everyone. I freely admit that.

You don't trust "the word of god". You trust your own understanding . Don't the Bible tell you not to do that?

See, you don't even understand the paradox of what you are claiming to believe.

1) You have a certain understanding of the Bible, which you own, hence it is your own.

2) You are not asked to trust it.

3) Who's understanding can you trust, but your own.

It's like saying, don't believe your own beliefs.

[BobRyan]

Every time an actual SDA appeals to some bible text or the "sola scriptura" Protestant argument - they are "appealing to authority". It is not logical fallacy to claim that God is an "authoritative" source -- as it turns out.

[fccool]

Quote:

I beg to differ.

Ellen White, Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and a host of others all admit that they "can see this point" even if you insist that you cannot.

And they are not all "Fundamentalist Christians" -- AND (getting to your argument above) they are not all "me".

This is where your argument chokes.

Why do you keep circling back to the flaw in your own argument?

Bob, my argument is not that they are not "all me". But that there are Christians on either side of evolution. Likewise, there are evolutionists who are on either side of Christianity.

For you to cherry-pick the ones that agree with your view is dishonest, especially when it misrepresents what I've been saying for the past 4-5 posts.

Evolution is not an exclusively atheist-supported idea!

While your favorite Ellen White, Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers, can see your point. Robert T. Bakker,Wolfhart Pannenberg, C.S. Lewis, Keith Ward,Ted Peters and the evil Pope himself , would argue that you are wrong about that.

Name throwing appeals to authority really is the weakest argument you and anyone can present.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Thank you for the confirmation. Metaphorically? Did he say it was just a metaphor? And have you ever seen a law not authored by someone?

Gerry,

Your argument is akin to saying that plants need water, and I could say that there are plenty of water in the toilet, and I've never seen plants grow out of my toilet.

You absolutely ignore any other possibilities. You zero in on one, and you run with it, saying that all of the other are illogical.

Do you even consider the possibilities, and stop using this silly logic?

Pardon my ignorance. I don't understand how your logic follows what I said. Can you give an example of a law that has not been authored by someone? And if it is not authored by someone, what the "other possibilitiies" are.

[fccool]

You make a logical mistake comparing the "laws of nature" to the laws of legislature. Laws of nature are not really "laws". Term "law" is given to describe a theoretical principle that always occurs given certain present conditions. The don't have to be authored. These are self-governing conditions that don't necessitate god's authorship for these to work. They just are, because they are.

For you to demand a law that has not been authored by someone, is like me demanding thought that has not been thought by someone. In our understanding, laws are authored ... but it's quite different than the laws of physics are.

You are mixing up semantics here.

Either way, the other possibilities can be:

1) Multiverse hypothesis

2) Eternal universe hypothesis

3) Anti-universe hypothesis

...

And many other. God is not the only alternative.

[Gerr]

You make a logical mistake comparing the "laws of nature" to the laws of legislature. Laws of nature are not really "laws". Term "law" is given to describe a theoretical principle that always occurs given certain present conditions. The don't have to be authored. These are self-governing conditions that don't necessitate god's authorship for these to work. They just are, because they are.

For you to demand a law that has not been authored by someone, is like me demanding thought that has not been thought by someone. In our understanding, laws are authored ... but it's quite different than the laws of physics are.

Our observable, testable experience is that all social laws have an author. Do we have any observable, testable evidence for you to conclude that natural laws are different and have no need for an author?

[fccool]

Gerry, I'm not sure which other way to explain it to you, therefore, please, try to understand it before throwing the same type of questions.

Term "law" in nature is given to describe theoretical principle that repeatably occurs given certain conditions.

These are not really "laws", but a variation on probability.

When you throw a rock up, then most likely it will come down, unless it's influenced by other force. It describes a principle. We can by similar reasoning make up a law of the coin. The law of the coin is that if you flip it in the air, it will most likely come down either on heads, or tails.

Your game here is a game of semantics, and it brings little explanation or meaning into this conversation. Perhaps a better argument would be an argument from fine-tuning of certain universal "constants". Legislative ideas are human invention. It is through these human-invention ideas that we set the "natural-law".

But, since you seemingly don't understand the heart of the argument, let's modify the discussion a bit.

1) You say that God is the author of the laws of the universe, and you present it as a proof.

2) You recognize that there are moral laws authored by God

3) Which leads to conclusion that God has certain principles that he abides by

Who created these principles for God to obey?

If your answer is that God has always existed with these principles, then it's no different than saying that universe always existed with these. You simply put a human face on certain processes that you can't explain, and then you call it God. As I've said before, it explains very little about origins.

[Gerr]

law : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Principle : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Law vs principle. Aren't you dealing with semantics also?

I am not presenting God as "proof" to anything. All I did was to question your line of reasoning. When I asked Sivart if he has ever seen a law without an author, you said that that applies to legislative laws. To put it in simple terms, here is how your logic looks to me:

Social/legislative laws have authors, but natural laws do not.

All I'm asking is to show evidence that what you said is true.

If all the legislated laws that govern my behavior have an author, my simple mind tells me that there must also be an author to the principles/laws that I see governing the operations of the natural world. Or is this illogical?

Who created these principles for God to obey?

If your answer is that God has always existed with these principles, then it's no different than saying that universe always existed with these. You simply put a human face on certain processes that you can't explain, and then you call it God. As I've said before, it explains very little about origins.

Then we are back to my original contention that when it comes to origins, it is a matter of faith. One theory is no more scientific than other. The interpretation of the evidences that are derived from empirical data depends then on what worldview lens is using.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

I beg to differ.

Ellen White, Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and a host of others all admit that they "can see this point" even if you insist that you cannot.

And they are not all "Fundamentalist Christians" -- AND (getting to your argument above) they are not all "me".

This is where your argument chokes.

Why do you keep circling back to the flaw in your own argument?

Bob, my argument is not that they are not "all me". But that there are Christians on either side of evolution. Likewise, there are evolutionists who are on either side of Christianity.

[fccool]

Quote:

Agree... A large mixed bag of confusion in this world on any topic you wish to name. Yet there is still "one God" and He says that "they are without excuse" in Romans 1 who seek to deny the Intelligent Design element "seen in the things that have been made" - even if they are pagans according to the text.

You are welcome to believe what you want, as the people who believe that UFOs are the extra-terrestrial beings come to visit us. The point is that you believing a 2000++ year old book, which has not really updated its language that you largely have to avoid, and pick and choose what you like to take literally, as I will show you shortly.

Quote:

And there is "one God convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment" so that we see some amazing agreement between Christians and even atheists on the point that evolutionism is uniquely atheist - it cannot be married to the Bible.

Bob, how can you agree to my statement in your first statement, and then contradict in virtually the same paragraph. You should run for office

Either there is an agreement among Christians on this topic, or there is not. It can't be both. You started your reply that there is not. In fact, I've shown you that there is no agreement.

Quote:

Yet as you point out there are those who would hold some extremely conflicted views even though we have such an objective example of "confirmation" in the agreement between even Darwin himself and Atheists...

Your response is a kind of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - pretend that it is all just random data points". As if any opinion that exists - must be sound simply because it "exists".

LOL. I don't take that stands. YOU DO. You argue that Biblical argument should be taken as valid simply because these exist, and are not subject to scientific and logical inquiry. YOU argue that people have no excuse to believe in creation or in Biblical claims, and their own deductive logic and discoveries are not valid excuses, no matter how correct they may seem.

Secondly, what you are talking about is disagreement with the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis, which even Judaism today does not hold... the people(faith) who wrote the book... if we are going to make appeal to authority arguments:

The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) has "maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis."

But, that's sort of besides the point. I was not trying to convince you that Evolution is compatible with Bible. I'm simply refuting your argument that evolution as a theory came out of necessity for atheists to explain the world without God. It's ludicrous and dishonest argument that attempts to dismiss the theory without proper evaluation by equating it with "atheist dogma".

I've shown you, that it's not.

Quote:

It is a "pretend-you-don't-see" solution that I think the TE position is forced to take - so I understand why you are going there. I still prefer the objectivity in showing how there is agreement on this fact between Christians and atheists (both sides of the fence - so to speak)

1) NO THE DON'T! Maybe you need visual help.

See those yellow regions of the circle? That's the percentage of Christians believing in Theistic evolution. Where is that agreement you are talking about? You can't simply say, well there is disagreement, BUT, they agree.

Quote:

Every evolutionist I know - knows enough to say "for in SIX Days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and and all that is in them and rested the seventh day" is not the common way to say "evolution did it". Thus the incredibly self-conflicted nature of the claim of TEs trying to put those two in the same box. Ellen White said that God views the TE position as the "worst form of infidelity" in 3SG90-91 - she did not say God does not think that TE's "exist". Your response to all this has been of the form "yes but TE's exist". And the fact that they "exist" has never been questioned.

I think you are confused about what I'm responding to.

Your position is that evolution is an exclusively atheistic view, and that Christianity disagrees with it. I've shown you repeatedly that it's not. You keep agreeing that there is disagreement, and then you go on contradict yourself by saying that there is an agreement. Which one is it?

Before you go on once again dogmatically repeating "But there's an agreement", view the graph. In Europe and Britain, theistic evolution is a majority view among Christians. What "agreement" are you talking about?

[BobRyan]

From the exchange at -

http://www.clubadventist.com/forum/ubbth...html#Post501030

You don't trust "the word of god". You trust your own understanding . ...

1) You have a certain understanding of the Bible, which you own, hence it is your own.

2) You are not asked to trust it.

3) Who's understanding can you trust, but your own.

[BobRyan]

Yet as you point out there are those who would hold some extremely conflicted views even though we have such an objective example of "confirmation" in the agreement between even Darwin himself and Atheists...

Your response is a kind of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - pretend that it is all just random data points". As if any opinion that exists - must be sound simply because it "exists".