Evidence for God from Science

From my experiences of debating with atheists over the years it comes down to a crunch. Since atheists believe death ends everything; that there is no after-life, then the biblical worldview is false and since therefore, there is no ultimate justice for anyone, any further discussion on biblical slavery, the destruction of the Canaanites (or anyone else for that matter) or that the God of the Bible is a despot is completely pointless. However, if the Christian worldview is correct, that death is not the end and there is to be a final and fair judgment where all sinful human beings will be judged on an individual basis by the only perfect human being, then matters appear in a very different light.

If the hard atheists like Neitzsche, Camus and Sartre were alive, and had accounts on this website, they would probably ask the new generation of atheists how they can rationally justify any commitment to timeless values whatsoever, without implicitly invoking God. According to their writings, they would say this is impossible: the existence of absolute values demands God. They might also add that the new generation of atheists are well aware of this, since in their deterministic world in which human behavior is nothing more than motions of atoms, it has no more moral significance than the dance of bees. They do not appear to have taken into account the fact that their atheism not only removes from them their liberal values but also any moral values whatsoever. Consequently then, all of the ramblings and moral criticisms on this thread of the Christian God and its belief system by non-believers are invalid; not so much because they are wrong but because they are absolutely meaningless. If such a denial of ethics is truly at the heart of their anti-theist hypothesis', then even a simpleton can see where the delusion really lies.

Because if DNA neither knows no cares, how is it that most of us (except for the sociopaths Jlay mentioned in his superb post), both know and care?

jlay wrote: Granted, I am a presuppositional apologist. But, for the sake of discussion, you are criticizing the God of the bible. So, you ought to be consistent. afterall, it is perfectly reasonable to say, "If the god of the bible exist, then......"

Thank you for informing me that you are an presuppositional apologist...end of discussion. Given that presuppositional apologists presume only Christians can be rational, I am not going to continue with a conversation that will end up going in continuous loops.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:The Bible absolutely condones "chattle" slavery as you call it (Def. Chattel slavery, so named because people are treated as the personal property, chattels, of an owner and are bought and sold as commodities), and I can give you verses in context to support it. First I will quote again Lev.25 where it specifically says that the Hebrews may buy as possessions the heathen and strangers to keep for themselves and give as an inheritance to their children.

Sorry, you are totally wrong. Buy from who?
The bible has MUCH to say about servitude and slavery. If you really want to get into the deepest study, I recommend Paul Copan's, "is God a Moral Monster."

The Exodus 21 verses are clearly an example of endentured servitude. No one is saying that the cultural realities of 3k-4k years ago were ideal. God granted Israel a theocracy that was realistic not fantastic. I'm not trying to get away from what the verses are saying. The verese were written to deal with a specific people in a specific place at a specific time.

Lev.25:44-45 clearly states that the Hebrews are allowed under their law to buy from the heathen and the strangers among themselves, people and keep those people as possessions to pass as an inheritance on to their children for ever. The Bibles allows, and condones the buying, and owning of people, and allows them to be passed down as an inheritance to their children.

This is exactly what slave traders did who took people from Africa and sold them to slave owners in this country, who then owned them as possessions until it became illegal to do so.

Butterfly, I can't help but notice that you still don't understand what the bible says about slavery. I know this is lengthy, but I think it will help you understand the difference between ANE servitude as in the bible, and chattel slavery:http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

RickD wrote:Butterfly, I can't help but notice that you still don't understand what the bible says about slavery. I know this is lengthy, but I think it will help you understand the difference between ANE servitude as in the bible, and chattel slavery:http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

It seems that you are blinded to the fact that the Bible condones ALL types of servitude including chattel slavery. Just because biblical laws may have required the Hebrews to treat their slaves more humanly than surrounding nations, does not mean they didn't have slaves. No matter how many lengthy articles people write trying to justify the owning of human beings it is still slavery, and no matter what time period people lived in, the Bible is supposed to be inspired by a God who doesn't change. So why didn't he give the Hebrews a law forbidding slavery, the same as he gave them laws for what kind of meat they could eat and what races of people they could marry?

No one has yet responded to the issue of perpetual servitude as stated in Lev.25:44-45, where it clearly states that the Hebrews could possess slaves of the heathens, and strangers, and pass then down as an inheritance in perpetuity. I'm waiting...

No one has yet responded to the issue of perpetual servitude as stated in Lev.25:44-45, where it clearly states that the Hebrews could possess slaves of the heathens, and strangers, and pass then down as an inheritance in perpetuity. I'm waiting...

I read the article Rick D posted and it covers this..........and much more.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

No one has yet responded to the issue of perpetual servitude as stated in Lev.25:44-45, where it clearly states that the Hebrews could possess slaves of the heathens, and strangers, and pass then down as an inheritance in perpetuity. I'm waiting...

I read the article Rick D posted and it covers this..........and much more.

If if does, please quote me the part that explains the specific verses that deal with perpetual slavery...or better yet, maybe you could just explain it to me. So far no one has been able to give me an interpretation in their own words, all I get is links that lead to long articles, that ignore the issue of slaves being passed down as an inheritance in perpetuity.

Butterfly wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

No one has yet responded to the issue of perpetual servitude as stated in Lev.25:44-45, where it clearly states that the Hebrews could possess slaves of the heathens, and strangers, and pass then down as an inheritance in perpetuity. I'm waiting...

I read the article Rick D posted and it covers this..........and much more.

If if does, please quote me the part that explains the specific verses that deal with perpetual slavery...or better yet, maybe you could just explain it to me. So far no one has been able to give me an interpretation in their own words, all I get is links that lead to long articles, that ignore the issue of slaves being passed down as an inheritance in perpetuity.

For instance, they go into servitude voluntarily to pay a debt or because they have no means of feeding themselves, they were not treated harshly and would have been more like an employee.

Taking one sentence out of a huge book and not bothering with context is always going to cause confusion, how about you read it from front to back combined with proper exegesis and draw some conclusions after that.

I am at work and I am not going to write an essay as there is already a wealth of information out there done by experts in their respective fields, which I am guessing is the same reason Rick posted the link to an article.

How do you know this? you don't. This is a form of chronological snobbery. It assumes past people are stupid.

I'm sorry jlay, but my statement is rather common sense and it doesn't assume past people were stupid.

That was the reality back then. But if you want to argue with that, maybe you can provide some examples... of what people used to steal in the stone age. As I said, a basic form of stealing might have existed...

Stealing is a behavior that basically relates to extra material gain, although some people steal for other reasons as well. But the main goal of stealing is material gain.

Now maybe you want to explain what people in the stone would steal... Sorry to repeat myself, but this is rather baffling. It's not chronological snobbery at all.

Uhh, then why do we hold criminals responsible? People who steal, do so knowing it is wrong. Have you ever done something you knew in your conscience was wrong?

I have done something that I was educated to perceive as wrong and I was also educated and told that punishment can arise from not respecting the rules.

People have a built in capacity for morality. those who don't we call sociopaths. That means there is something wrong with their wiring, and they aren't able to discern any moral responsibility.

Sociopaths and Psychopaths are in the same league and their wiring was designed by God. Or you want to say that this is a human fault? We don't design human beings last time I checked...

Uhh, then why do we hold criminals responsible? People who steal, do so knowing it is wrong. Have you ever done something you knew in your conscience was wrong?

Because they were educated just like you and me about the punishment that will arise from not respecting a law created by society.

Just so you know, the medieval nomadic gipsy culture perceives stealing as a positive desirable behavior. And gipsies were educated in the spirit of stealing as something good.

Just from reading your post, i don't think you are an expert on primitive cultures or on social behavior.

If you want an expert, sorry, but I don't have a diploma to show you...

that isn't the argument. Of course morality is interpreted by people (moral beings) and often they get it wrong. But how could you say we EVER get it right if there is no standard outside of man? answer: you can't. People get math wrong all the time. that doens't mean the rules of math change arbitrarily.

I don't understand something about your statement which baffles me totally. Why do you need an exterior standard for morality? Why isn't the human standard enough for you? I don't get it. You are basically saying that we human beings are so retarded we can't create our own moral standard. I mean, why are you assuming that morality has to be the same with maths? Does it seem to you that math and morality can be compared?

Gasp? Are you implying this is wrong? Based on?

I didn't say it's right or wrong. I was just saying that on a society based on MONEY, morality is subjective. He who has the money makes the rules. It's not that hard to spot.

Afterall, the point of your question presumes that killing a child is objectively wrong. You have to smuggle in OM in an attempt to attack it

Who says that killing a child is objectively wrong? That happens every single day in Africa. Is that wrong? I don't see something changing... I guess that people think it's a good thing.

You have to smuggle in OM in an attempt to attack it

Actually I don't have to smuggle anything. Did you forget? We are on opposite sides...
I think morality is subjective so I can assign right and wrong as I please or anyways I can assign right or wrong values according to what the society thinks it's wrong or right at this moment. You can't do that.

I'm sorry jlay, but my statement is rather common sense and it doesn't assume past people were stupid.

Bryan, It's not common sense at all. it assumes that people in the past were just simpletons. But it doesn't matter. For example. What if there were no humans on earth right now. Would murder be wrong?

Sociopaths and Psychopaths are in the same league and their wiring was designed by God. Or you want to say that this is a human fault? We don't design human beings last time I checked...

if I design a computer, and it becomes corrupted, did I design the corruption? i think you know the answer is no.

I have done something that I was educated to perceive as wrong and I was also educated and told that punishment can arise from not respecting the rules.

Simple question. Is it wrong to torture children for fun?
Next: If you knew there would be no punishment would it then be wrong to torture children for fun?

Just so you know, the medieval nomadic gipsy culture perceives stealing as a positive desirable behavior. And gipsies were educated in the spirit of stealing as something good

Glad you brought that up. So, is it right or wrong to raise up a child to believe that stealing is desirable? Your post implies this very thing. but, it you are right about morality, then it is no different to train someone that stealing is good versus stealing is bad. It is no difference than one's preference for vanilla over chocalate. Subjective. Correct? And thus, it would also be no different to train up children to perceive that torturing for pleasure is a positve desirable behavior.

Butterfly wrote:Thank you for informing me that you are an presuppositional apologist...end of discussion. Given that presuppositional apologists presume only Christians can be rational, I am not going to continue with a conversation that will end up going in continuous loops.

And you think that sounds rational? That isn't what presuppositional apologetics is at all. EVERYONE has presuppositions, including you. Many, if not most presuppose things without giving any account for holding them. For example, many atheist presuppose things are wrong (objectively), such as, "religion forcing it's views on someone else." Yet, they want to argue against objectively morality. It presupposes one thing and argues another.
Do you think that is rational?

For example, you just admitted that you have a problem for PA's claiming that only Christians are rational. (which isn't true) Which implies there is some inherent quality in being rational. OK, account for it. Account for the abstract, immaterial laws of logic, which are governing this conversation. Presuppositions. The only rational conclusion is to presuppose that abstract rules are provided by a rule giver. It is absurd to presume rules arise by chance. Particularly rules that cannot be accounted for materially.

Regarding slavery. As I mentioned earlier, the issue of slavery is difficult, but more nuanced than 2 vereses. Are you aware of the practices of the pagan nations around Israel? Granted, i wouldn't want to be a slave in that time, but if I had to chose one nation to be one in, there is little doubt which nation it would be. As I said, the OT law makes provision for the harsh realities of the world at that time. it doesn't attempt to fix every social ill.
No matter how many lengthy articles peo ... d marry?
One, that wasn't the purpose of the law. many things are forbidden regarding slavery. All you are showing is you are close minded to any explanation. You refuse to consider cultural idioms. The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46),
The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11)
The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)

Butterfly wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

No one has yet responded to the issue of perpetual servitude as stated in Lev.25:44-45, where it clearly states that the Hebrews could possess slaves of the heathens, and strangers, and pass then down as an inheritance in perpetuity. I'm waiting...

I read the article Rick D posted and it covers this..........and much more.

If if does, please quote me the part that explains the specific verses that deal with perpetual slavery...or better yet, maybe you could just explain it to me. So far no one has been able to give me an interpretation in their own words, all I get is links that lead to long articles, that ignore the issue of slaves being passed down as an inheritance in perpetuity.

Butterfly, I can see this is a very important issue to you. The least you can do is read the article I posted. The 1/2 hour it takes to read it is well worth it. You will understand the context of slavery in ANE culture. The article addresses the Lev. 25 passage. I can't just quote the part that has the explanation of those verses, because to get a proper understanding of that explanation, one needs to read the preceding explanations. It puts it all is proper context. We can't understand slavery in ANE culture if we don't understand the culture itself. It most definitely is not the same as American chattel slavery. If this issue is as important to you as I think it is, and if you are searching for the truth in this issue, then please take the time to read the article. It's well worth it.

Bryan, It's not common sense at all. it assumes that people in the past were just simpletons. But it doesn't matter. For example. What if there were no humans on earth right now. Would murder be wrong?

Your question is illogical. I told you already that I stand by subjective morality. If there are no humans to create a moral standard, then your question is basically pointless and has no answer.

if I design a computer, and it becomes corrupted, did I design the corruption? i think you know the answer is no.

You didn't design the corruption, but you did design a computer that can become corrupted. Basically your design is flawed. You need to go back to the drawing board and make a better computer. Anyways, comparing people with computers is not something I would do.

The issue of sociopaths and psychopaths is quite an interesting subject. Don't forget that you are talking about people here. Such people have no real choice about being evil.

Simple question. Is it wrong to torture children for fun?
Next: If you knew there would be no punishment would it then be wrong to torture children for fun?

Glad you brought that up. So, is it right or wrong to raise up a child to believe that stealing is desirable? Your post implies this very thing. but, it you are right about morality, then it is no different to train someone that stealing is good versus stealing is bad. It is no difference than one's preference for vanilla over chocalate. Subjective. Correct? And thus, it would also be no different to train up children to perceive that torturing for pleasure is a positve desirable behavior.

You keep asking me if some things are right or wrong? The discussion we are having is not about this question. It is about choosing which things are wrong and which ones are right. When I say subjective morality you simply extrapolate that it doesn't matter which things are right and which are wrong. Subjective morality implies that you make the rules. Objective morality implies that you already have a set of rules given by God that you should uphold no matter what.

And you continue making some weird comparisons: you compare moral values with vanilla and chocolate. Sorry mate, but vanilla and chocolate preferences do not affect the functionality of a society. Moral values do.

And if you read one of my posts up the topic you will see that I mention two types of moral laws: explicit and implicit.

Explicit moral laws are the ones you will get punished for by the society enforcers if you break them. (these relate to functionality, cohesion, balance within a society)
Implicit moral laws are the ones that are set at an informal level and which can be broken without society (in general) enforcing any kind of punishment on you. Of course you can get reprimanded or become an outcast of your ethnic/religious/friends' group... One of the good examples for this implicit moral values is ex-communication given by the Pope.

Explicit laws are much closer to being objective because they apply for a larger group of people and the majority of people agree with the rules
Implicit "laws" (rules) are quite subjective in their nature and can vary a lot depending on which group you analyze.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

No one has yet responded to the issue of perpetual servitude as stated in Lev.25:44-45, where it clearly states that the Hebrews could possess slaves of the heathens, and strangers, and pass then down as an inheritance in perpetuity. I'm waiting...

I read the article Rick D posted and it covers this..........and much more.

If if does, please quote me the part that explains the specific verses that deal with perpetual slavery...or better yet, maybe you could just explain it to me. So far no one has been able to give me an interpretation in their own words, all I get is links that lead to long articles, that ignore the issue of slaves being passed down as an inheritance in perpetuity.

For instance, they go into servitude voluntarily to pay a debt or because they have no means of feeding themselves, they were not treated harshly and would have been more like an employee.

Taking one sentence out of a huge book and not bothering with context is always going to cause confusion, how about you read it from front to back combined with proper exegesis and draw some conclusions after that.

I am at work and I am not going to write an essay as there is already a wealth of information out there done by experts in their respective fields, which I am guessing is the same reason Rick posted the link to an article.

You completely avoided my question, just like the article you linked to did. Talking about voluntary servitude has nothing to do with what the verses I quoted from Lev.25:44-45, nor does the Bible ever speak of perpetual voluntary servitude. That is the issue, please address it...

Both articles (Rick Deem, Glen Miller) go on, and on about slavery versus servitude making up loads of material along the way, without ever really addressing the main issue of owning people and keeping them and their children in perpetual servitude. Owning another human being is a violation of their human rights, and immoral...God allowed for such behavior in the Bible, which makes him morally corrupt and invalidates him as a true god.

The amount of time it took you to write your post avoiding my question, would have been sufficient time to copy and paste the appropriate part of Rick Deems article, so that's no excuse.

You didn't design the corruption, but you did design a computer that can become corrupted. Basically your design is flawed. You need to go back to the drawing board and make a better computer. Anyways, comparing people with computers is not something I would do.

the ability to corrupt something doesn't mean it is flawed. It is contradictory to say that an eternal, omipotent being can create an eternal, omnipotent being. Fail.

BryanH wrote:Such people have no real choice about being evil.

Yes, why?
What is it they lack?

BryanH wrote:Objective morality implies that you already have a set of rules given by God that you should uphold no matter what.

OM implies that there is a standard outside of man. That it REALLY is wrong to torture children for pleasure and not merely a preference.
Thus vanilla and chocolate, which are.......preferences. I can't say you are 'wrong' for prefering vanilla, even if everyone else in the culture prefers chocolate. The word 'wrong' just becomes a token assigned to societal or personal preferences. I suspect this is why you didn't answer the questions. You know where the answer leads.

Explicit laws are much closer to being objective because they apply for a larger group of people and the majority of people agree with the rules
Implicit "laws" (rules) are quite subjective in their nature and can vary a lot depending on which group you analyze.

Sure, we can play it your way. Let's say the gypsy culture is the prevailing rule. Is it then morally "right" to steal? And if so, would you do it and teach it as right? And if not, by what reason would you resist? And if you say because it hurts society, then please account for the inherent value in society?

And you continue making some weird comparisons: you compare moral values with vanilla and chocolate. Sorry mate, but vanilla and chocolate preferences do not affect the functionality of a society. Moral values do.

Smuggling in OM. it presumes that a functioning society has some inherent value.

You didn't design the corruption, but you did design a computer that can become corrupted. Basically your design is flawed. You need to go back to the drawing board and make a better computer. Anyways, comparing people with computers is not something I would do.

the ability to corrupt something doesn't mean it is flawed. It is contradictory to say that an eternal, omipotent being can create an eternal, omnipotent being. Fail.

BryanH wrote:Such people have no real choice about being evil.

Yes, why?
What is it they lack?

BryanH wrote:Objective morality implies that you already have a set of rules given by God that you should uphold no matter what.

OM implies that there is a standard outside of man. That it REALLY is wrong to torture children for pleasure and not merely a preference.
Thus vanilla and chocolate, which are.......preferences. I can't say you are 'wrong' for prefering vanilla, even if everyone else in the culture prefers chocolate. The word 'wrong' just becomes a token assigned to societal or personal preferences. I suspect this is why you didn't answer the questions. You know where the answer leads.

Explicit laws are much closer to being objective because they apply for a larger group of people and the majority of people agree with the rules
Implicit "laws" (rules) are quite subjective in their nature and can vary a lot depending on which group you analyze.

Sure, we can play it your way. Let's say the gypsy culture is the prevailing rule. Is it then morally "right" to steal? And if so, would you do it and teach it as right? And if not, by what reason would you resist? And if you say because it hurts society, then please account for the inherent value in society?

And you continue making some weird comparisons: you compare moral values with vanilla and chocolate. Sorry mate, but vanilla and chocolate preferences do not affect the functionality of a society. Moral values do.

Smuggling in OM. it presumes that a functioning society has some inherent value.

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

No one has yet responded to the issue of perpetual servitude as stated in Lev.25:44-45, where it clearly states that the Hebrews could possess slaves of the heathens, and strangers, and pass then down as an inheritance in perpetuity. I'm waiting...

I read the article Rick D posted and it covers this..........and much more.

If if does, please quote me the part that explains the specific verses that deal with perpetual slavery...or better yet, maybe you could just explain it to me. So far no one has been able to give me an interpretation in their own words, all I get is links that lead to long articles, that ignore the issue of slaves being passed down as an inheritance in perpetuity.

Butterfly, I can see this is a very important issue to you. The least you can do is read the article I posted. The 1/2 hour it takes to read it is well worth it. You will understand the context of slavery in ANE culture. The article addresses the Lev. 25 passage. I can't just quote the part that has the explanation of those verses, because to get a proper understanding of that explanation, one needs to read the preceding explanations. It puts it all is proper context. We can't understand slavery in ANE culture if we don't understand the culture itself. It most definitely is not the same as American chattel slavery. If this issue is as important to you as I think it is, and if you are searching for the truth in this issue, then please take the time to read the article. It's well worth it.

Hello Rick, I did read your article, and I have read many others like it which says similar things. In your article you spoke of the verses in Lev.25:39-43 which addresses only "countrymen", meaning their fellow Hebrew's...not foreigners. This is entirely different than the verses from Lev.25:44-45 which address the issue of slaves bought from the heathen in surrounding countries, and foreigners living in Israel.

As I said in another post, this issue of God allowing perpetual servitude has nothing to do with the culture of the ANE, but everything to do with allowing people who were not Hebrews, to be treated in a manner that denied them equal human rights in perpetuity. A clear distinction is made in verse 45 between what can be done to a Hebrew servant versus a non-Hebrew, these are rules set up by the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So, there is no denying that immoral treatment of non-Hebrews was approved of by God.