Fenrir wrote:Adam and Eve's "sin" was to seek knowledge. In what kind of fucked up universe is curiosity a bad thing?

It's actually worse than that.

The tree was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is, eating the fruit granted the ability to make ethical judgements, as the story describes.

How could Adam and Eve even be expected to work out that eating the fruit was "wrong", absent this ability? Even if they had made the "right" decision, it would only have been random chance. Presumably the cosmic prankster God described would have just thought up something else.

Perhaps a hat lying on the ground with a brick under it?

carl wrote:

Nicko wrote:

carl wrote:God was not taken by surprise by mankind's sinfulness nor is He without a plan to redeem the situation:

So He has a solution for the problem He created?

Cool. How's that working out?

The point, in case it escapes you, is that omnipotent beings don't need "a plan" to do anything. They want something done, it's done. That's what "omnipotent" means.

Regardless, your objection still doesn't address the issue of the vast amount of suffering not caused by human beings.

1) Where in the Bible does it say God caused the Fall after His initial Creation? It doesn't. It says humans caused it and continue to perpetuate it today.

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

If he didn't want them to fail, why did he put this tree there? To test them? But he's all-knowing, so he knew they would disobey, therefore putting the tree there, with the knowledge that they would fail his test, means that he caused "the Fall."

2) What cosmic law says God can't have a plan and have a certain timing for the unfolding of His plan?

Suffering, birth defects, disease, natural disasters, death, etc. were all brought into God's perfect Creation by Adam and Eve's original sin, which tainted God's original Creation which was initially 'very good'.

Where in the Bible does it say that God caused a worm that eats eyeballs? Or that he caused flesh-eating bacteria to develop just to spite humans because he set his creation up for a fall by putting temptation in their way, knowing that they would succumb to the temptation?

Genesis 1: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

So he rather liked the flesh-eating bacteria then. They were "very good."

Furthermore, the place in which most of humanity errs is our belief that we can somehow make our personal wrongs right thru our good deeds. This is where the Bible is especially unique: We cannot 'pay' for our sins by our good deeds any more than a convict on death row who claims his past 'good deeds' should get him off death row. If a judge let a death-row convict go free because of his past good deeds, he would be a corrupt judge. God is not corrupt.

He's not corrupt? Then what do you call this is not narcissism and corruption:

Exodus 20: 3- 6: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments

This sounds exactly like a modern dictator who demands that even when he's voted out of office, he not only be returned to office, but that his opponent who legally won the election, be thrown in prison for daring to go up against him. That's what your God is: a petty, narcissistic, self-imported, self-appointed megalomaniac.

Quite how amazing carl is stuck in this simple world of a single planet. The rest of the universe(s) does not matter. This deity is only interested in this third rock from a miserable star in one galaxy. What a fucking joke.

Carl how about all the rest? You are stuck in the goat-fuckers mentality. Just as bad as other major belief systems. Your flat earth with four corners does not match reality.

As for that book you keep on preaching from is the biggest load of vile whose only equivalent is another load vile which has and is causing so much pain and harm of this planet. They both should be banned.

Scot Dutchy wrote: You are stuck in the goat-fuckers mentality.

In their defence, the goats did say "no."

carl wrote:

Nicko wrote:

carl wrote:God was not taken by surprise by mankind's sinfulness nor is He without a plan to redeem the situation:

So He has a solution for the problem He created?

Cool. How's that working out?

The point, in case it escapes you, is that omnipotent beings don't need "a plan" to do anything. They want something done, it's done. That's what "omnipotent" means.

Regardless, your objection still doesn't address the issue of the vast amount of suffering not caused by human beings.

1) Where in the Bible does it say God caused the Fall after His initial Creation? It doesn't.

It does. The bible literally states God created everything.

carl wrote: It says humans caused it and continue to perpetuate it today.

You cannot cause something to exist that doesn't exist in some shape in the first place.
I.e. if there is no need for consumption, you cannot cause hunger to exist.
Likewise, if God had not created evil and sin, there'd could not be any Fall.

carl wrote:2) What cosmic law says God can't have a plan and have a certain timing for the unfolding of His plan?

The concepts of benovelence and omnipotence.
You still haven't adressed the problem of evil carl.

carl wrote:Suffering, birth defects, disease, natural disasters, death, etc. were all brought into God's perfect Creation by Adam and Eve's original sin, which tainted God's original Creation which was initially 'very good'.

Bollocks, God created all those, not Adam and Eve.
Again carl, how did sin come into his very good creation? How did evil?

carl wrote:Genesis 1: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

Where did evil come from carl? Where did sin come from carl?

carl wrote:Furthermore, the place in which most of humanity errs is our belief that we can somehow make our personal wrongs right thru our good deeds. This is where the Bible is especially unique: We cannot 'pay' for our sins by our good deeds any more than a convict on death row who claims his past 'good deeds' should get him off death row. If a judge let a death-row convict go free because of his past good deeds, he would be a corrupt judge. God is not corrupt.

Then how can Jesus pay for the sins of others carl?
You should really stop your attempt at Christian apologetics, you suck at it. Even more so that the 'professionals'.

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

carl wrote:
A 'good' God is not discounted simply based on a 'bad' world:

1) After God created everything, His Creation was 'very good': "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day." (Genesis 1).

2) That 'very good' Creation became tainted by mankind's sin: "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it; all the days of your life; It will produce thorns and thistles for you...and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3). Death and suffering are introduced by mankind's sin.

The above explains how a 'good God' created a 'very good' world which soon became filled with violence because of mankind's sinfulness. This process of degradation continues today, via the sins and hurtful acts of modern humans (everybody today).

This is in direct contradiction to the OT:

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

People cannot be responsible fir ech others sins carl.
So how can infants be punished with illness, hardship and death?

ok, so are you thinking the Bible is showing that suffering today is punishment for the sin of Adam and Eve?

No, that is what you claim to believe. I'm merely pointing out that the bible contradicts that claim.

carl wrote:People cannot be responsible for the sins of others, fully agreed by myself AND the Bible.

Then why are people punished with death, illness etc. for the crimes of Adam and Eve carl?

carl wrote:General question not directed at anyone: Have you ever hurt anyone? That was your sin - with hurtful consequences on the innocent party. The innocent party is NOT responsible, but suffers nonetheless.

Why?
Why the fuck would a supposed omnipotent and benevolent god allow this to happen?
That you seriously believe this is the most fucked up thing of all.
Seriously the mental gymnastic involved to accept this kind of sick morality and illogicality is staggering.

carl wrote:God will right this wrong on Judgment Day IN THE FUTURE; the Bible never claims that heaven is here now.

Why?
If God truly is omnipotent and benevolent, why wait? Why not fix the situation now?
Answer the question carl. Stop dodging.

carl wrote:Rev 21: Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”


Note: This is A FUTURE EVENT.

Note that this is false:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 24:29-35 NAB)

Matthew 16:28 “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

So tell me carl, are some of the apostles immortal?

So was the Chicxulub impact before or after Eve took the apple?

Nicko wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Adam and Eve's "sin" was to seek knowledge. In what kind of fucked up universe is curiosity a bad thing?

It's actually worse than that.

The tree was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is, eating the fruit granted the ability to make ethical judgements, as the story describes.

Which brings us exactly to the point I've covered above, namely that if we're to believe the assertions of this mythology, the purported "first humans" were purportedly "created" without any capacity for ethical thought. Which means that the only way that they could find out if a decision was right or wrong from an ethical standpoint, was to eat the very fruit they were told not to. In short, if you treat the assertions of this mythology as fact, then the inevitable conclusion is that Magic Man wanted to keep them stupid.

Nicko wrote:How could Adam and Eve even be expected to work out that eating the fruit was "wrong", absent this ability? Even if they had made the "right" decision, it would only have been random chance.

Which is exactly why the whole "fall" fairy tale is a crock of shit from start to finish, as I've already explained. After all, we, nowadays, require people to demonstrate a certain minimum mental competence, before they are considered to be legally responsible for their actions, at least in developed jurisdictions. Those bereft of the mental equipment required to make elementary ethical judgements, are candidates not for prison, but for a psychiatric hospital. Yet there is no way, that this sort of developed view of ethical competence, could possibly have arisen from the nasty little assertions in Genesis, which assert that the entire human species is being punished, for all time, for the mistakes of two mentally incompetent individuals. Those assertions in Genesis comprise a hideous, inhuman, utterly fascist view of the world, the universe as a cosmic North Korea, and the god of this mythology as the eternal Kim Il Sung, the Dear Leader to be sucked up to.

Nicko wrote:Presumably the cosmic prankster God described would have just thought up something else.

Perhaps a hat lying on the ground with a brick under it?

You're not thinking cruel and unusual enough. Remember, we're talking about an entity which, if it actually exists, decided that we should be punished for something done by someone else long dead. If you want something suitable, try any of the death traps from Lemmings.

Calilasseia wrote: the inevitable conclusion is that Magic Man wanted to keep them stupid.

Actually, given the rest of the tenets of this fabrication, the truly inevitable conclusion is the one you already elucidated, namely this was some sick, perverted sort of sting. I know you share this position, but it provides a useful juncture at which to make it explicit; there is no sense in which the stupidity of the individuals in question could be described as the aims of Magic Man, because there's no way he didn't know that this contradiction existed. Indeed, even a fairly stupid deity would spot this glaring flaw, let alone one who is allegedly omnipotent. That some believers aren't even as clever as a fairly stupid deity is neither here nor there.

The inevitable conclusion is that Magic Man is, in the immortal words of Brick Top, a 'orrible cunt.

If, of course, this entity actually exists.

But I'm minded of the aphorism that our gods are made in our own image. The trouble is, the people who fashioned this one, by doing so, told us some extremely unpleasant things about themselves. Moreover, we see, all too frequently, how adherence to this particular mythology is disturbingly attractive to all sorts of creepy and dangerous individuals. It's not unique in this respect, though it's a particularly powerful attractor in the function space, and shares with the other Abrahamic mythologies the lethal accompaniment of that hideous innovation the Middle East brought to the table, in the form of ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine. That lethal accompaniment, of course, is what makes these mythologies so irresistibly seductive to all manner of charlatans, crooks, and outright sociopaths. The thought that with a minimum of effort, they could not only ride a comfortable gravy train, and persuade millions of others to keep them riding said gravy train, but also press the doctrine into the service of their own desires with such consummate ease, as to "legitimise" even their darkest and sickest fantasies, is what makes the whole business of doctrines and adherence thereto pernicious and pestilential.

Of course, the irredeemable stormtroopers for those doctrines will rail against any analysis exposing these malicious defects, and resort to predictable, demonising apologetics as a knee-jerk response. Watch this space and see how quickly this prediction comes true.

Indeedy.

Nebogipfel wrote:

carl wrote:
BTW, will those studies actually claiming to confirm the origin of the universe (as if !) contain the words: "possibly", "maybe", "we propose", "it seems likely", "could", "should", "might", "in all likelihood", "theorize", etc.. ?

I doubt if any study will authoritatively claim to confirm the origins of the universe. We leave the delusions of 100% certainty to religion.

We need to discern what is speculative and what is confirmative.

We can and we do. It's called science. You should learn about it.

We ought never to confuse true science with speculation. For example, to put modern medicine alongside the theory of abiogenesis is very deceiving. It is a deceitful practice of many skeptics and atheists on the internet.

This is what happens when we are overly impresses with those who have PhDs in some field of pseudoscience (not science) when they discuss their theory of abiogenesis, theory of evolution, theory of cosmology, theory of......

Unfortunately, what we don't understand is that immense topics such as the origin of the universe or the origin of life are out of our reach to scientifically confirm, leaving us with speculation about that which occurred in ancient history. There is no way to apply the scientific method - or any other scientific method - to confirm such theories, leaving us with the dubious position of placing our faith in those whom we listen to, with their grand theories and presuppositions.

This is why Jesus said: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

The level of our education has nothing to do with the condition of our heart. We can have ten PhDs but if we're bent away from God, we're on the road to destruction, as well as those who foolishly listen to them.

NO faulty HUMAN BEING will ever be able to tell us, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or origin of life, through ANY technology.

If they try to tell us so, they are not a braniac but a megalomaniac. It should never cease to amaze us how much stretching of the truth, exaggeration, and extravagance of the claims we see in the media today. Every pseudoscientist wants to be in the limelight, and there are throngs of armchair science-fiction fans out there to satisfy their ridiculous egos.

Megalomania:
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

Habakkuk 2
See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright--but the righteous will live by his faith.

Psalm 10: The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God...

1 Timothy
Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called...

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—W. Kaempffert.

carl wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:

carl wrote:
BTW, will those studies actually claiming to confirm the origin of the universe (as if !) contain the words: "possibly", "maybe", "we propose", "it seems likely", "could", "should", "might", "in all likelihood", "theorize", etc.. ?

I doubt if any study will authoritatively claim to confirm the origins of the universe. We leave the delusions of 100% certainty to religion.

We need to discern what is speculative and what is confirmative.

We can and we do. It's called science. You should learn about it.

We ought never to confuse true science with speculation.

Certainly not, hence why Nebogipfel urges you to learn about it.

carl wrote: For example, to put modern medicine alongside the theory of abiogenesis is very deceiving.

Only to those who know fuck all about abiogenisis and assume the two are on the same level.
Science isn't 1 black and white thing carl.

carl wrote: It is a deceitful practice of many skeptics and atheists on the internet.

No, what you're doing is deceptive and dishonest, to pretend these things are seen as the same.

carl wrote:This is what happens when we are overly impresses with those who have PhDs in some field of pseudoscience (not science) when they discuss their theory of abiogenesis, theory of evolution, theory of cosmology, theory of......

No this is what happens when disengenuous apologists try attack things they clearly do not understand.
With the above quote you have just demonstrates you haven't got a fucking clue what science is, nor what the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial usage of theory is.
Stop conversing via your rectum carl, it will stop you from making yourself look like a fool.

carl wrote:Unfortunately, what we don't understand is that immense topics such as the origin of the universe

You're begging the question that there's any such thing.
Like many theist apologists do.

carl wrote: or the origin of life are out of our reach to scientifically confirm

Remember what I said about talking through your arse carl?
Blind and asinine assertions like these only demonstrate your theistic blinders.

carl wrote: leaving us with speculation about that which occurred in ancient history.

Once again demonstrating you haven't a fucking clue about science, whether that be biology, cosmology or archeology/history.

carl wrote: There is no way to apply the scientific method - or any other scientific method - to confirm such theories, leaving us with the dubious position of placing our faith in those whom we listen to, with their grand theories and presuppositions.

Thus carl hath blindly asserted thus it shall be forever more.

carl wrote:This is why Jesus said: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Dumbledore 4:11

“After all to the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.”

Accept Harry Potter, as the Boy Who Lived or you shall surely be killed by He Who Must Not Be Named.

carl wrote:The level of our education has nothing to do with the condition of our heart.

Green ideas sleep furiously.

carl wrote: We can have ten PhDs but if we're bent away from God, we're on the road to destruction, as well as those who foolishly listen to them.

Got any evidence that your god exists carl?
Otherwise these thinly veiled threats are not just silly, but contrary to the FUA.

carl wrote:<snip> more blind assertions, preachings and general nonsense <snip>

carl wrote:We ought never to confuse true science with speculation.

Boom! You just fucked every argument you can possibly make concerning your understanding of science. Let me make this explicit for you: All science is speculative to some degree.

Thanks for exposing your ignorance in such a manner. The rest of your tenure here, of which I expect brevity to be the main feature, will be dedicated to my pointing and laughing each time you purport to be in a position to have anything remotely intelligent to say about science.

Its absolutely fine that we can't even scratch the surface of questions like the origin of the universe or origin of life. This is because of our limitations. W. Kaempffert died many years ago but his words are still true today, regardless of our technological advances. We do have huge limitations regarding these questions of origins, wouldn't you agree?

Furthermore, the reason why NOT being able to scratch the surface of the immense questions of origins is such an emotional topic, well, simply points back to the OP - our view of theism/atheism has deep emotional roots. And that's ok too.

Has this not been made obvious by now?

hackenslash wrote:

carl wrote:We ought never to confuse true science with speculation.

Boom! You just fucked every argument you can possibly make concerning your understanding of science. Let me make this explicit for you: All science is speculative to some degree.

You are implying that speculation regarding the boiling point of water is on equal terms as speculation regarding the origin of the universe. I don't think so. Not even close. Trying to draw such a parallel is deception.

One is legitimate science useful to man on a daily basis; the other is pure speculation.

carl wrote:You are implying that speculation regarding the boiling point of water is on equal terms as speculation regarding the origin of the universe. I don't think so. Not even close. Trying to draw such a parallel is deception.

Is it? What's the boiling point of water, then? Can you actually substantiate your assertions here?

By the way, that question you keep avoiding, which I'm really glad you brought up again: What makes you think that the universe had or required an origin?

One is legitimate science useful to man on a daily basis; the other is not.

Tell you what, when you make any point that connects with genuine science, you'll get a round of applause. Trust me, I'll know when this happens, because I know a thing or two about science.

Protip: Hasn't happened yet.

Anyhoo, you have two question before you from me alone:

1. What is the boiling point of water?
2. What makes you think that the universe had or required an origin?

I expect a bit more from an omnipotent, omniscient creator than "very good". I want fucking most excellent, dude.

carl wrote:Its absolutely fine that we can't even scratch the surface of questions like the origin of the universe or origin of life.

You're still begging the question here carl. Blindly regurgitating this assertion doesn't make it any less so.

carl wrote:This is because of our limitations.

Still bollocks carl.

carl wrote: W. Kaempffert died many years ago but his words are still true today, regardless of our technological advances.

Blind appeals to authority won't convince anyone.

carl wrote:We do have huge limitations regarding these questions of origins, wouldn't you agree?

I don't. We're discovering more each day. Just because we don't know how life started today, doesn't mean it's impossible to find out period.

carl wrote:Furthermore, the reason why NOT being able to scratch the surface of the immense questions of origins is such an emotional topic

It really isn't. Some people make it that.

carl wrote:well, simply points back to the OP - our view of theism/atheism has deep emotional roots. And that's ok too.

Has this not been made obvious by now?

It should be obvious from the numerous refutations you've received that it's not only not obvious, but pure shite.
But then you have shown a consistent tendency to ignore any and all refutations of your vacuous guff and prefer instead to mindlessly regurgitate the same bullshit accompanied by preaching.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

carl wrote:

Nicko wrote:

carl wrote:God was not taken by surprise by mankind's sinfulness nor is He without a plan to redeem the situation:

So He has a solution for the problem He created?

Cool. How's that working out?

The point, in case it escapes you, is that omnipotent beings don't need "a plan" to do anything. They want something done, it's done. That's what "omnipotent" means.

Regardless, your objection still doesn't address the issue of the vast amount of suffering not caused by human beings.

1) Where in the Bible does it say God caused the Fall after His initial Creation? It doesn't.

It does. The bible literally states God created everything.

And this is the point that carl is STILL ignoring, even after I pointed it out pages and pages ago, just as I predicted he would.

If your God made everything in exacting detail as you believe carl, then he is primarily responsible for all of it. Will you please address this instead of ignoring it? Because every time you ignore it, it further convinces everyone that you haven't put much thought into your beliefs, and that you have no interest in questioning any of them. Not a great position to hold on a skeptic's forum.