Evidence for God from Science

BryanH wrote: We were talking about God creating people who are evil and have no choice about that. You are implying that such people are "corrupted". Corrupted by what?

No, you are talking about that. They are corrupted by sin entering the world. God didn't create people evil. My position doesn't affirm that. So, you are either creating a straw man, or you are saying God really does exist, you just don't like his methods.

I don't know mate. Go visit a psychiatry hospital. Maybe then you will understand better.

Ignorance is fine, but at least don't try in one response to claim to know what you are talking about. People born that way lack a moral compass. In other words exactly what you are trying to avoid. That people have the innate capacity for morality. That is they are able to respond to an outside immaterial standard we know as morality. This is exactly why people fight for justice. Sometimes society gets it wrong. But how do we know they are wrong? Example, Chattel slavery. So, what you are saying is that those people who oppose slavery really have no reason to do so. It's just preference, and that people who are for slavery are no more wrong or right than those who wanted to abolish slavery.

There is no point in answering your question. I am not talking here about what is right and wrong, but the about the fact that I can choose what is right and wrong. I have already told you this.

Yes, and i'm saying that right and wrong don't mean anything under that worldview. That it is like saying someone is wrong for liking vanilla. a PREFERENCE. Yet, here you are saying that we are WRONG for claiming objective morality.

I'm not smuggling anything. I told you already(again) that societies choose their own moral values of right and wrong according to how a society shifts one way or another.

Yes, and you refuse to answer the questions directed at you regarding this. And we all know why. Have the guts to follow your line of reasoning where it goes. Is it "wrong" to torture children for pleasure?
Is it wrong even if society promotes it as acceptable behavior?
How do we know when a society chooses right?

Moral laws are not decided based on individual examples. They are based on laws enforced at societal level. Your example is irrelevant. And another thing: you are not in the position to decide anything.

Ah, hah, we have finally found the supreme moral authority. Bryan!!

You were EDUCATED to believe that A is good and B is bad.
You were EDUCATED to think that there is an objective god which gave you moral objectivity.
Thus you are subjective.

Let's just assume for the sake of discussion you are right. Then,...so what?? Who cares. If morality is only subjective, then why are you trying to prove your position RIGHT and someone else WRONG. afterall, if would only be subjectively so. But you see, you don't live like that. You live like certain things are really right and really wrong.

Morality is built through education. If they don't teach you moral values, you will never know them. You will never behave in a moral way.

Math is built through education. so what? that isn't the point. The fact that morality is built through education, doesn't mean there isn't a standard outside of man by which we are being educated towards. We teach math. But math is based on objective truths that exist outside of man.

Morality is not something you are born with.

Is a society that promotes stealing worse, better, or the same as one that condemns it?

Butterfly wrote:So, you are telling me that because God knew the Hebrews were going to break the laws anyway, he just gave them some "casual" laws, like being able to keep foreign slaves in perpetuity?

Of course God knew laws would be broken. However, the context of Jesus' quote is the 10 commands. He even quotes them. (adultery, murder)
However, much of the law for Israel was conditional. It dealt with farming practices, clothing, food, and the many other issues, including (gasp!) slavery.
If everything was perfect, they wouldn't need those laws. Did i live in those times? No. Can i perfectly explain why? No. Does that mean there isn't a perfect explanation? No. Does it mean we should all just toss the Bible out? Heaven forbid.

Butterfly wrote:Through my extensive biblical research, the unavoidable conclusions I came to were that the God portrayed in the Bible is immoral, biased toward the male, and unjust...which left me no choice but to invalidate him as a true God.

Immoral based on what????
All you are saying here is you don't like God. Now the reasons could be that you have some better moral code. But better of course implies OM, and that creates all kinds of problems for your position. Or, you may not understand why God did the things He did. I don't understand all the ways of God. But does that mean I can invalidate God? No. Or does having a difficulty with the Bible mean a person should reject it in its entirity? You obviously aren't married.
The fact is that God makes a provision for slavery. It isn't going to change.

jlay wrote:But better of course implies OM

We've been through this many times over the years but I still don't get it.

One more time:

If I think chocolate is better than vanilla then no objective standard is implied

If I think buying is better than stealing then an objective standard is implied

Yes?

Butterfly wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There is a context in regards to the Hebrew people that needs to be understood and why the laws was given to them and why the laws was HOW it was for THAT time, for them.
They were a people that had been enslaved for generations, all they new was slavery and the slave caste system.
They were a people that, even after witnessing all they did to escape captivity, turned on Moses and God the first chance(S) they got.
They were a people that had been punished over and over by God for rebelling against Him and yet, they still did.
They were a people that God had to accommodate and shape and mold and when you do that, you have to accommodate and work with what you have.
Casual laws were a necessity with them since they were gonna "break" laws anyways, much like the many causal laws we have now.
Did God condone slavery?
Nope, as a matter of fact he made a HUGE statement against it - The Exodus.
Did God KNOW that the hebrews were gonna keep slaves no matter what? Of course He did and as such he made provisional and casual Laws for that, Laws that the Hebrews kept as well as they could, but many faltered ( imagine if they had been even more strict".
Were the OT laws perfect? Hell no, not even close, they were Laws to accommodate the Hebrews, to bring them step-by-step, closer to being the people of God.
To lay the foundation for a greater and better Law, a Law of Love given by The Word of God personally.

Oh my, a perfect God making imperfect laws! I wonder if Jesus knew about that when he said:

Matt.5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So, you are telling me that because God knew the Hebrews were going to break the laws anyway, he just gave them some "casual" laws, like being able to keep foreign slaves in perpetuity?

You don't see how a perfect God would accommodate imperfect man?
I mean, IF He COULDN'T do that (accommodate), He'd hardly be perfect, would He?

Proinsias wrote:

jlay wrote:But better of course implies OM

We've been through this many times over the years but I still don't get it.

One more time:

If I think chocolate is better than vanilla then no objective standard is implied

If I think buying is better than stealing then an objective standard is implied

Yes?

The idea of "better" implies objectivity, no?
I mean, better than what? compared to what? based on the notion there is such a things as "better" because such a notion does exist?

Proinsias wrote:

jlay wrote:But better of course implies OM

We've been through this many times over the years but I still don't get it.

One more time:

If I think chocolate is better than vanilla then no objective standard is implied

If I think buying is better than stealing then an objective standard is implied

Yes?

The way you worded it, no.

Here:
If I think chocolate is better than vanilla then no objective standard is implied

If I think buying is better than stealing, because stealing is inherently wrong, then an objective standard is implied

Butterfly wrote:So, let see....which Objective moral principles did God set as a standard to expose our sin?

Why the first part of the Golden rule which you break…

"Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Mat 22:37, 38, 39, 40 NIV

What sin does it expose – why this within you…

Butterfly wrote:Maybe it was the principle of inequality? If a person is born a male and a Hebrew than he gets all sorts of privileges women are denied under God's moral principles. Hebrew males get to marry multiple women, have concubines and take any captive woman they desire, they also can get away with rape as long as the woman who's raped is single and the man pays her father 50 shekels. Then there is the whole slavery thing, whereas if the slave is a Hebrew he must be set free in the year of Jubilee, but if the slave is a foreigner he may be owned in perpetuity….

….You know, I don't have any problem believing people of all races, and genders should have equal human rights...but, it seems like God does, especially in the Old Testament.

Interesting according to the New Covenant:

Col 3:19, Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. NIV

I apologize for whatever abuse you received from a man or men that has tainted your world view and clouded you with such bias with hate towards God; whom you blame for allowing such abuse to have happened. Now you read such hurt into what you read in the Old Testament, and then claim that such abuse is the Objective Morality ordained by God. Be calm - it does not. I say this with gentle firmness, that as long as you let personal bias to cloud your interpretation of the OT as well as refuse to have the deep wound of heart be healed, then you'll always view God as a Moral Monster. You just might never actually see that in the OT, God was reacting to the Human Condition of an ancient social norm regarding slavery. The points of the OT Law regarding slavery were for this purpose - assimilate salves into becoming citizens and to treat them well. Slavery was a human norm and God simply was addressing this in the ancient socialital norm context.

Christian's led the way for the abolition of Slavery - that is a historical fact. Why and How - due to the tenants of the New Covenant. This fact has escaped your moral monster judgment. There was a reason for the New Covenant that came through and by Jesus Christ, which you also appear to equally hold with equal disdain, thus, breaking your own golden rule you can’t keep. Why?

Now, with the advent of the New Covenant, those OT laws which you falsely accuse as being part of God’s objective moral standards, are not.

So which OT standards are God's Objective Moral Standards? The answer - the Ten Commandments, as, defined by Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40. The rest of the law had nothing to do with setting objective moral standard as you claim but instead were used to prove to human beings the sin that exist within the human heart.

Rom 7:7-25 , What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

So this brings us to the New Covenant I mentioned above...

Butterfly wrote: Out of all the moral principles in the Bible, exactly which ones do you think were given by God as objective moral principles?

The ones under the New Covenant – the Old has be done away with as it is written…

Jeremiah 31:31, 32, 33, Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; JPS

2 Co 3:6-9 , who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. NASB

Heb 8:13, When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. NASB

Heb 9:15. For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. NIV

Butterfly wrote: So, let see....which Objective moral principles did God set as a standard to expose our sin?

Why the first part of the Golden rule which you break…and justify as the the best to break due to whatever happened in your past...

Mat 22:37, 38, 39, 40, Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. NIV
-
-
-

PaulSacramento wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There is a context in regards to the Hebrew people that needs to be understood and why the laws was given to them and why the laws was HOW it was for THAT time, for them.
They were a people that had been enslaved for generations, all they new was slavery and the slave caste system.
They were a people that, even after witnessing all they did to escape captivity, turned on Moses and God the first chance(S) they got.
They were a people that had been punished over and over by God for rebelling against Him and yet, they still did.
They were a people that God had to accommodate and shape and mold and when you do that, you have to accommodate and work with what you have.
Casual laws were a necessity with them since they were gonna "break" laws anyways, much like the many causal laws we have now.
Did God condone slavery?
Nope, as a matter of fact he made a HUGE statement against it - The Exodus.
Did God KNOW that the hebrews were gonna keep slaves no matter what? Of course He did and as such he made provisional and casual Laws for that, Laws that the Hebrews kept as well as they could, but many faltered ( imagine if they had been even more strict".
Were the OT laws perfect? Hell no, not even close, they were Laws to accommodate the Hebrews, to bring them step-by-step, closer to being the people of God.
To lay the foundation for a greater and better Law, a Law of Love given by The Word of God personally.

Oh my, a perfect God making imperfect laws! I wonder if Jesus knew about that when he said:

Matt.5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So, you are telling me that because God knew the Hebrews were going to break the laws anyway, he just gave them some "casual" laws, like being able to keep foreign slaves in perpetuity?

You don't see how a perfect God would accommodate imperfect man?
I mean, IF He COULDN'T do that (accommodate), He'd hardly be perfect, would He?

Sorry, that doesn't cut it! A good parent doesn't accommodate their children if they are practicing immoral behavior.

Nope, a parent gives them the "rules and regulations" that he hopes they will follow and, as any parent knows, HOPES that they will NOT drive them away.
It is a precarious balance of course, the "just enough but not too much" or rules and regulations.
A parent accommodates his/her disciple to the child ( although the Hebrews were NOT children of course).
A parent knows which child needs a smack in the butt and know which child needs a time out and what works for one may not work for the other.
The Hebrews was a scarred and abused people, centuries of bondage and they had all the scars of an abused, including BEING the abusers.
You do NOT force things on someone that has been abused if you wan them to do what is best for them with the knowledge thatit i sbest for them.
You do your best to "wean" out the bad while instilling the good.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it! A good parent doesn't accommodate their children if they are practicing immoral behavior.

Good? According to?
Immoral? According to?
Quit smuggling in OM.

B. W. wrote: So which OT standards are God's Objective Moral Standards? The answer - the Ten Commandments, as, defined by Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40. The rest of the law had nothing to do with setting objective moral standard as you claim but instead were used to prove to human beings the sin that exist within the human heart.


-

So, if the Ten Commandments are God's Objective Moral Standards, then that means worshiping only Yahweh, keeping the Sabbath, not taking Yahweh's name in vain, and not coveting your neighbor things are all OM. Oops, I think I committed some immoral acts...

jlay wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't cut it! A good parent doesn't accommodate their children if they are practicing immoral behavior.

Good? According to?
Immoral? According to?
Quit smuggling in OM.

Quit making excuses for God. If he exists he can defend himself.

I fail to understand why modern people keep trying to defend the morals of the primitive Bronze Age men who wrote the Bible. Haven't you noticed the huge difference between the morals of the Old Testament god and the New? Clearly showing that morals evolve with the human intellect, if god is taken out of the picture there is no need to make excuses for the bad moral behavior of primitive man.

Answer the question.
Good according to?
Immoral according to?

Ad hominem attacks aint going to cut it.

jlay wrote: Ad hominem attacks aint going to cut it.

I think you need to look up the definition of Ad Hominem. You told me to quit smuggling in OM, so I told you to quit making excuses for God...that is hardly an Ad hominem attack.

jlay wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't cut it! A good parent doesn't accommodate their children if they are practicing immoral behavior.

Good? According to?
Immoral? According to?
Quit smuggling in OM.

Maybe I need to rephrase my example for you and be more specific. If my toddler hits other children, do I accommodate him and allow him to do it because he doesn't know any better, or do I teach him that it is wrong?

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't cut it! A good parent doesn't accommodate their children if they are practicing immoral behavior.

Good? According to?
Immoral? According to?
Quit smuggling in OM.

Maybe I need to rephrase my example for you and be more specific. If my toddler hits other children, do I accommodate him and allow him to do it because he doesn't know any better, or do I teach him that it is wrong?

Teaching is exactly what God was doing, humans are slow, dull witted creatures with hard hearts......... it took a long time for God to shape them into a nation where the messiah could be born into. God could not come down in one foul swoop and change people according to his will, it's like when you first become a Christian you dont't all of a sudden change over night..... santification is a process and God works with our human stubbornness...... he is the most patient being I know.