|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 16, 2017 10:29:30 GMT
FilmFlaneur QED. When I so chide, be sure and point it out. You are perfectly entitled to believe in what ever deliberate supernatural being you choose and all the associate stories and myths, and I would always defend your right to do so. In addition you will never read me asserting that the deliberate supernatural you prefer does not exist. Just don't ask me to take the ideas and assumptions supporting your claims without severe doubts, especially when there is no evidence outside of credulity and ancient myth. There is no evidence for a literal Adam and Eve other than the opening chapters of the Bible which are generally considered creation myths. As such they are common to what is found in most early cultures; to defend one over all the others needs a good explanation why, when all suffer from the same lack of substantiation. Modern genetics, meanwhile, considers that the original homo sapiens were represented by more than a couple of examples (and can prove it), so at least you have something. You are welcome to your speculation. A cynic might just suggest that the lack of mention in the Bible simply reflects the understandable ignorance of the original authors of Genesis. In fact rarely, if at all, does one see in the Bible any non-transcendental knowledge passed to readers that only a God would have known about at that time (EG "know ye, verily that the light I have created is but a wave and particle at the same time while it is altogether eight planets I have made unto you.." etc). But, just as you are welcome to your opinions, so are you welcome to your special pleading. QED Not always. Instance the well-researched Cambrian explosion of new life forms, which was a relatively short evolutionary event. There are also modern examples of change and adaption to survive (the growth of anti-biotic resistance among some pathogens, for instance) which has happened within a lifetime. Evolution does not happen 'automatically', either. Some species change little or not at all, for millions of years. This is not true of everyone who believes in God. Some think that 'kinds' have existed more or less the same ever since creation. Young Earth Creationists, for instance. Science does not consider the 'possibility' of the deliberate supernatural as a cause of anything. In fact, science has nothing to say on that subject - unless one considers intelligent design a science. The Dover trial verdict, for one, headed by a Federal, Republican, did not judge this about creationist thinking, even after days of testimony by experts pleading its case. Saying 'Scripture is an authority because it says so' is a circular argument. But I can see why it might be necessary to use it. That was not my point. I was considering the contradiction of two or more religions which both claim the same level of authority, but then present explicit, contradictory claims (EG the status of Jesus) at the same time. An outsider can see how the distinctive authority of each might suffer, even if enthusiasts can't - or won't.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 16, 2017 11:51:55 GMT
2. You are, as previously said, welcome to your opinion. It is, by the same standard, my opinion that soul and hogwash are also the same. All you have to do to prove me wrong is evidence your claim. 4. Above your words were "Genetics and heredity determine change and evolution does not need to be something better.. Once something attans [sic] perfection [by which one assumes you mean the OP's 'God's final design' since you were addressing the matter], evolution becomes irrelevant" were they not? The observation is still that evolution will continue, whether something is adjudged subjectively 'perfect' or not. And, one recalls even God only managed "very good", one remembers. Perhaps he is still working on the perfection bit? 5. I am glad to hear it. So Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, the talking serpent etc (the former mentioned by you just above in terms which suggests a consideration that they actually existed as described) er, just 'evolved'? How did that work then? 2. OK, to reconcile this that would mean life is hogwash.
4. God's final design is not contingent on genetic makeup. Perfection is something that can allow for diversity. Evolution could continue since advancement does not need to be a component of evolution.
That said, I do need to clarify your assumption. One can still advance and be perfect because perfection is based on a standard, not an end game. That's why we can still continue learning or better our skills.
5. I'm saying creation is no more supernatural than ventriloquism. I imagine that right now there are men of science trying or possibly accomplishing the same thing than a man and woman do when they boink.
2. That is not logical. When I say that the notion of soul is hogwash, it is only you who associates soul as the same as life - and without evidence. For my own part, I can evidence, indeed prove that life, and nonsensical ideas exist. It appears that neither you or I can demonstrate the same for 'souls'.
4. To talk of God's final design meaningfully you will first have to evidence that the Designer-God exists, let alone that the human observer could ever know when a design was judged 'final' in a world of constant change. Also since 'perfection' in this context is a matter of opinion any judgement, one way or another, is subjective. Or to put it another way, if it is possible to think of something more than the existing thing then one can always imagine something 'more perfect'. i.e. I can think of any life form and find a way it might be improved. I can even think of a more perfect God for that matter. One for instance who has no cause to "repent" (as He does a few times in the Bible), or who one who would create a perfect world not one merely "very good", thus excluding evil.
5. If you say that, ruling out the supernatural, then you are not a creationist - but then I recall this is something which you have very recently agreed ("to an extent.. I have no reason at all to doubt it ") elsewhere that you are, right down to the creation of a literal Adam and Eve. One either thinks that that the universe and life originated from specific acts of divine creation, as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes - or not. Which is it in your case?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 16, 2017 15:08:22 GMT
FilmFlaneur I will unless I don't reply. Ok. There's no evidence for large swaths of humanity. I don;t know anyone past my great great grandparents and probably never will. But we know they existed even if there's no evidence of their existence. Adam & Eve have far more going for them than most that have no royal lineage. I have no issues with placing confidence in ones who did believe them to exist and in large quantities - Millions even. Once again, f I had a reason to dismiss it I would. I just haven't been given one. I'll try to refrain from speaking in ways you think are absolute in order to stop forcing you to come up with exceptions. I do agree that evolution is pretty mundane and could happen in certain instances or not. Again, I don;t have a responsibility to speak on their behalf or to concern myself with the view until they can prove the view as true. You keep calling it supernatural when I have distinctly stated I don't even view creation as supernatural. Neither does science. You keep changing the intent. I never said Scripture was an authority for anything other than itself. Not to say I don;t believe that, but to say I'm not expecting you to believe that so why wuld I expect it? It remains silly to say that the Bible can't be used to say what the Bible says. This is why I'm not stating this based on a religious belief which I still haven't even discussed t any great degree beyond saying I believe in God and his son Jesus. The reason I focus on what Scripture says is because that's what it says. Any particular religion and their beliefs is irrelevant to what it states. It makes no difference where their teachings compliment it or contradict it since the words are what they are. If I concern myself with any particular religious view, I will make it clear in my posts. Otherwise, you are just tossing them in there for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 16, 2017 15:27:26 GMT
2. OK, to reconcile this that would mean life is hogwash.
4. God's final design is not contingent on genetic makeup. Perfection is something that can allow for diversity. Evolution could continue since advancement does not need to be a component of evolution.
That said, I do need to clarify your assumption. One can still advance and be perfect because perfection is based on a standard, not an end game. That's why we can still continue learning or better our skills.
5. I'm saying creation is no more supernatural than ventriloquism. I imagine that right now there are men of science trying or possibly accomplishing the same thing than a man and woman do when they boink.
2. That is not logical. When I say that the notion of soul is hogwash, it is only you who associates soul as the same as life - and without evidence. For my own part, I can evidence, indeed prove that life, and nonsensical ideas exist. It appears that neither you or I can demonstrate the same for 'souls'.
4. To talk of God's final design meaningfully you will first have to evidence that the Designer-God exists, let alone that the human observer could ever know when a design was judged 'final' in a world of constant change. Also since 'perfection' in this context is a matter of opinion any judgement, one way or another, is subjective. Or to put it another way, if it is possible to think of something more than the existing thing then one can always imagine something 'more perfect'. i.e. I can think of any life form and find a way it might be improved. I can even think of a more perfect God for that matter. One for instance who has no cause to "repent" (as He does a few times in the Bible), or who one who would create a perfect world not one merely "very good", thus excluding evil.
5. If you say that, ruling out the supernatural, then you are not a creationist - but then I recall this is something which you have very recently agreed ("to an extent.. I have no reason at all to doubt it ") elsewhere that you are, right down to the creation of a literal Adam and Eve. One either thinks that that the universe and life originated from specific acts of divine creation, as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes - or not. Which is it in your case?
2. That's not true. I don't think about the soul apart from living at all. I associate it with what scripture says. Souls die and they are distinctly connected with life. So it doesn't matter that you think souls are hogwash to me if you think life is awesome. That's illogical. You need to have that kind of discussion with someone else. 4. Circular. Can we just concede that you win the argument because I can;t say abracadabra and show God to you? I know you can;t show me any "possible" alternative either, but at this point it's silly to come back to "Derp, prove God exists". You win and I'll only have my beliefs and faith to comfort me from your masterful debating skills. If the thread were about proving God to you, I wouldn't have commented at all and now I find that I'm wasting an inordinate of time having a discussion about proving God exists. For what other reason than padding I do not know. To the topic. You must have completely [dis]missed my statement on this. Of course things can be improved up all the time. That is not what perfection means. Perfection not about the pinnacle. Adam & Eve were never at a pinnacle. Jesus was never at a pinnacle. Perfection is the expected standard of intelligent life following God and in relation to expectations. If you learn anything at all on any given day, you have improved yourself. If you shave one second off a run, you have improved yourself. I can only hope that perfection involves me constantly improving myself while being perfect. 5. It depends on how you define a creationist. Generally speaking a creationist is focused on the details of creation, meaning that they tend to go hand in hand with YEC's. I am not a YEC by any stretch of the imagination. However, if you are thinking a creationist is someone who believes God created the universe and life, whether directly or indirectly, then I would be one since I don;t believe life evolved completely on its own. Again, I have no reason to believe that do I? If that makes it hard t define me (Or easy depending on how the lumping goes...), then I can live with that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 16, 2017 15:47:42 GMT
There's no evidence for large swaths of humanity. Such things are getting better. For instance, after the finds of recent years, the view is that modern man - or our closest ancestors - appeared not just once, in a single place (although the Great Rift Valley is still a significant site), but instead at different times, in several variations, and lands apart. I know now that you consider Adam and Eve literally existed, just as the Bible described since you told me, above. Thinking this variant on common early myths, complete with talking serpent etc, is necessarily the most accurate representation of early history is something you are welcome to. But, unlike that for your grandparents, there is no evidence for such existence while genetics, as already mentioned, together with recent hominoid fossil discoveries, tell a different and much richer story - one which the ancient myth makers such as those you are so attached to would not have imagined. The notion of Adam and Eve (reason: no evidence) ... or the idea, underlined by genetic science, that early humans were more numerous than just an initial two? QED. Quite right, after all you have a fair bit to do to show your own views necessarily true as it is - or they can be rejected on the same basis as they are proposed - on a point of opinion. As a creationist, by definition, you accept that that the universe and life originated from specific acts of divine,( i.e. supernatural creation), as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes. To put it another way: were your Adam and Eve, there right at the dawn of a proposed human history, created - or did they just 'evolve' into being the first couple? You would have thought scripture would have mentioned it if natural processes brought them so forth, while one would be intrigued to know how evolution, at least as it is commonly understood, could create just two of something complete with speech and a moral sense. What would be the intent of yours other than to establish the substantiation of what the Bible says by asserting that, in effect, all one needs is the Bible by way of substantiation? Adam and Eve and story, for instance the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions, don't appear anywhere else. The Bible is their only source. QED Quoting a source is fine. Using a circular argument in favour of its authority is something else. But I think you know that really. I could argue on the same basis, using the American Atheist's website, that God does not exist since it says so, and they ought to know. See how it would work? You are, as always, welcome to your beliefs. And what are those words then, if directly contradicted by another scripture held in equal esteem, by others? Would your bible therefore be "irrelevant" to most of the rest of the world? Your Jesus might have something to say about that. They are being "tossed in" to show that religious 'truth' is a moveable feast, depending on subjective (and equally unevidenced) views, mostly common to a range of faiths now and then, rather than any privileged insights. Otherwise one could easily show the difference between a real and imaginary deity. But perhaps you can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 16:04:21 GMT
1.If Adam and Eve were actual historical figures and the story of the Garden of Eve was a historical event, would that not preclude the possibility that Adam and Eve were themselves evolved from lower life forms? 2. So you believe that when a 'good Christian' dies, his decaying body teleports or otherwise rematerialises in heaven, thus leaving a vacant coffin (after the open casket funeral, of course)? And does it rematerialise in its decayed and hideous form, do you think? 1. They weren't since they were directly created by God and for a particular purpose. So assuming that other human forms evolved naturally or under God's direction, Adam & Eve were distinctly separate from that. Now we have no idea what creation processes are involved so anything involving details about evolution of any life are merely speculation since they aren't terribly important.
2. No. I never discussed my beliefs but feel free to assume them.
The questions you pose only involve my opinion which is entirely speculation or actual scripture. Actual Scripture indicates life and soul go hand in hand and dead is dead.
1. So to be clear, you believe that Adam & Eve are a separate ancestral line from the evolved humans? What was the point of having both evolution and also humans built by God from scratch? Why did he only build Adam and Eve from scratch, if he could have done that with all humans? And if Adam and Eve are a separate ancestral line, does that mean that we aren't all descended from Adam and Eve and therefore it's unfair for the rest of us to inherit their 'fallenness'? 2. Well you are the one who stated that the soul isn't seperate from the body, but I know that you also believe in heaven. Do you believe that the soul detaches from the body after death, then?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 16, 2017 16:37:11 GMT
1. They weren't since they were directly created by God and for a particular purpose. So assuming that other human forms evolved naturally or under God's direction, Adam & Eve were distinctly separate from that. Now we have no idea what creation processes are involved so anything involving details about evolution of any life are merely speculation since they aren't terribly important.
2. No. I never discussed my beliefs but feel free to assume them.
The questions you pose only involve my opinion which is entirely speculation or actual scripture. Actual Scripture indicates life and soul go hand in hand and dead is dead.
1. So to be clear, you believe that Adam & Eve are a separate ancestral line from the evolved humans? What was the point of having both evolution and also humans built by God from scratch? Why did he only build Adam and Eve from scratch, if he could have done that with all humans? And if Adam and Eve are a separate ancestral line, does that mean that we aren't all descended from Adam and Eve and therefore it's unfair for the rest of us to inherit their 'fallenness'? 2. Well you are the one who stated that the soul isn't seperate from the body, but I know that you also believe in heaven. Do you believe that the soul detaches from the body after death, then? 1. I'm saying that Adam & Eve were distinctly created by God. The ancestral line is completely irrelevant. The point would be that God created a couple that were supposed to follow his standards and which would involve a particular purpose for that creation and it's offspring. Why he did this is too irrelevant to specualte on except to say that he perhaps creates better than what evolution provides. 2. Yes and you are the one that decided to add a theory that had nothing to do with my statement. Please continue to do so if you feel you need to to understand answer to your question. It doesn;t hurt my feelings as long as you don;t pretend to be my spokesperson. As I've already stated, I believe that soul and life are identical. If one lives in heaven, they are still alive based on whatever life means in heaven. To be clear, I may believe in heaven but that does not necessarily mean that heaven is a endpoint for people. I have o idea what the details of salvation would entail since it doesn't really matter
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 16, 2017 16:54:40 GMT
@filmflaner I'm going to overall ignore anything that makes clear you ignored what I said in order to trim this down a bit. Yeah, but what are their names? Are you under the impression that I said Adam and Eve were the first? FF: God doesn't exist Me: Says Who? FF: Atheist website Me: Ok or Me: The Bible says the soul and life are the same FF: Says who Me: The Bible FF: So you're saying that I should think the soul and life are the same Me: No FF: Yes you are and it's circular since he doesn't exist according to me and the atheist website Me: Ok See how much longer your version of the conversation is without adding anything? Referring to the source does not make the source accurate even if it is referred to. But lets see how you can contort this into a debate point again. Show the contradiction and I'll address it. It would seem silly for me to address a contradiction of scripture with seeing it. I'm not exactly scared of the attempts and I can only assume this is a lead in for that anyway. Heck, I can think of a couple of them that pop up routinely. Not if you look at the foundation which usually takes an earthquake to move. I don't have any privileged insights for sure, but I also don;t have any hangups for a particular religious view which is why I'm pretty comfortable with what the Bible says, literally or figuratively
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2017 12:51:21 GMT
A question I've often pondered is whether the people who think they don't have a soul actually don't have one. I also wonder how something like that could happen.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 17, 2017 13:35:03 GMT
@filmflaner I'm going to overall ignore anything that makes clear you ignored what I said in order to trim this down a bit. "I'm not going to reference anything to which I have no answer and just do the trivia now, which is quicker" That would be the point. That only the Bible offers such details as the supposed names of the first two humans, that the Genesis myth is just one of many equivalent tales from most early cultures , and using the Bible to substantiate its own claims is a circular argument. I hope that helps. Adam is the name used in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis for the first man created by God. "Genesis tells of God's creation of the world and its creatures, with humankind as the last of his creatures: "Male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam ..." (Genesis 5:2). There are no previous men mentioned. So, unless you can show why this is not the case, any other supposition is unbiblical. In any case it makes no difference since a creationist, Young Age, Old Age, Day Age or whatever, believes that the first man was created by a purported deliberate supernatural whenever they appeared, as this is a literal reading of the relevant verses. Which is odd since this is exactly what you have told me on this very thread (That the "soul is life" etc) lol. I have not, however, ever asserted that you are 'telling me what I should think', so that unfortunately is a straw man. But this is not a logical follow-on from the consideration of the purported soul you mentioned immediately before this pretend exchange. Let alone the consideration that souls might exist without the Christian God's need to be, in order to make them necessary. QED then. Er, but this is exactly the point I was making about the use of scripture to justify what scripture says, or when I compared the view of JC's status (ie minor prophet or messiah) when one looks at the Qu'ran and then the Bible. Are you following this? "... the fact that between Islam and the figure of Jesus Christ there exists a literary tradition spanning a millennium and a half of a continuous historical relationship -- a preoccupation with Jesus that may well be unique among the world's great non-Christian religions. To do full justice to this record, I would need a far larger canvas than the one available to me today. Instead I can only hope to draw a sketch of the contours of that relationship; to point to only a few of its highest peaks, its defining moments. The Qur'an is the axial text of Islamic civilization, and it is of course where we must begin for Islam's earliest images of Jesus. Approximately one third of the Quranic text is made up of narratives of earlier prophets, most of them Biblical. Among these prophetic figures, Jesus stands out as the most puzzling. The Qur'an rewrites the story of Jesus more radically than that of any other prophet, and in doing so it reinvents him. The intention is clearly to distance him from the opinions about him current among Christians. The result is surprising to a Christian reader or listener. The Jesus of the Qur'an, more than any equivalent prophetic figure, is placed inside a theological argument rather than inside a narrative. He is very unlike his Gospel image. There is no Incarnation, no Ministry and no Passion. His divinity is strenuously denied either by him or by God directly. Equally denied is his crucifixion. A Christian may well ask, what can possibly be left of his significance if all these essential attributes of his image are gone? Jesus reinterpreted by the Qur'an is singled out, again and again, as a prophet of very special significance. Uniquely among prophets he is described as a miracle of God, an aya; he is the word and spirit of God; he is the prophet of peace par excellence; and , finally it is he who predicts the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) and thus, one might say, is the harbinger of Islam. " www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/isa.shtml Off you go then! I am very surprised that you are unaware of the different status of JC within Islam. So can I. But that is a different discussion. Show me the difference between your preferred God and an imaginary another which can be evidenced outside of the claims of scripture and personal credulity then. The trouble with being too comfortable is that one can fall asleep.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 17, 2017 13:36:32 GMT
A question I've often pondered is whether the people who think they don't have a soul actually don't have one. I also wonder how something like that could happen. How can one tell whether one has a soul or not? What would be the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2017 22:59:07 GMT
A question I've often pondered is whether the people who think they don't have a soul actually don't have one. I also wonder how something like that could happen. How can one tell whether one has a soul or not? What would be the difference? I'm sorry the data is very sketchy. Some poor people are especially soulful, but even a rich person or two here or there can also be.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 20, 2017 11:14:47 GMT
How can one tell whether one has a soul or not? What would be the difference? I'm sorry the data is unavailable. Some poor people are especially soulful, but even a rich person or two here or there can also be. Corrected.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 29, 2017 4:14:22 GMT
This is why I don't believe in an afterlife and it doesn't bother me.
|
|