“I'm not asking you establish your beliefs. I'm asking you to define your terms. God is perfect. This world isn't perfect. Theists do not claim that the world is perfect.”
For crying out loud, for the umpteenth time…
Here is a shock and surprise: You more clearly defined what you were talking about.
All you need to do is answer this:
1. Is God perfect?
Well since you refuse to define "Perfect" I will Perfect = flawless, infalliable, no improvement needed. And Yes, that begins to describe God.
2. Can God do anything imperfectly?
If yes, you invalidate 1.
God can't do anything imperfectly.
3. Did God create the universe?
Yes, God created all of reality and is in control of everything.
4. Did God create the universe perfectly?
What you seem to be saying is that God created a perfect world but humans imperfected it (with the Fall) or something similar. I have said several times, to which you have not satisfactorily answered
If God created the universe perfectly and new, infallibly in advance, that humans would imperfect his world AND he chose to create this world and those humans OVER AND ABOVE any other world with any other outcome (since he knows all counterfactuals, being omniscient)
I've never denied that was my view. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it false.
It follows that creating a perfect world and creating an originally perfect world (what I called the perfect parameters) are in effect synonymous. So you can bang on about me not defining perfect.
That was what I wanted to know....clearly and unambiguously when I asked you what you meant by perfect. This is different that whatever you had been saying. Finally! Was that really so hard? However I disagree. They are not the same because you are arguing using the existence of evil. There was no evil when the world Universe was first created. It's like trying to calculate moving objects with special relativity with nothing in the scenario moving faster that a few hundred miles and hour. Because there is no difference in the observed outcome, your logic would assume that it's all the same. It's not. Nice attempted dodge but you'll have to do better than that.
Whatever, I DO NOT ASSERT GOD OR PERFECT. But all Christians do. You give me ONE Christian who asserts God is imperfect. So, as a generalisation, Christians believe God is perfect. T
I don't think that was ever a bone of contention. I have never argued that God is not perfect. What I've said several times and you seem to ignore it is that the Christian Worldview is that the Universe is not perfect in its current state. .
That is an establishment of premise 1 that does not require me to justify either the meaning of God or the meaning of perfect. I do not hold a belief on either. I am not advancing the idea that God is perfect. You, on the other hand, might well need to argue over it, but suffice to say, you all believe it.
I never said that all of your premise are wrong. You keep seeming to think that I am trying to argue that God is not perfect. I AM NOT!!! My point from the beginning is that the world is not perfect....therefore your conclusions fail.
Now, I have established that that initial creation was perfect. But God’s infallible foreknowledge is ‘perfect’ too. So either way, the design permits, and the designer knows, of the outcomes. Thus the designer, since he could have done otherwise, and could have had any other outcome, chose this one.
Therefore, God’s perfect choice, since he cannot choose imperfectly, was a choice of bringing in this ‘imperfect world, as you choose to see it. Unless this is THE ONLY possible outcome. In which it is a necessary outcome, given creation. Obody believes this, so we will return to the former point.
This is where you introduce a lot of ambiguity. You claim that you don't have to explain how or why you have chosen to see it but you seem to claim that this is not the only possible outcome and that's fine, but how do you evaluate the Christian perspective when you haven't explain why either of these possibilities are wrong.
So either this is a perfect universe straight out, or it is a perfect set of parameters which brought about an imperfect world, which was perfect by outcome and choice anyway. Thus it is still a perfect world in one way or another.
That depends on what you call "perfect". And I'm not buying your non-definition. You have given me no reason to. I'm not just going to to take your word for it.
So on and so forth.
Yes, your point being?
But, do you know what, I couldn’t give a toss whether you understand this, admit to it or whatever.
And that's why you just keep writing more and more comments longer that the drivel you originally wrote. Yup, you don't care at all.
What really pisses me off is these sort of sentences:
“From the Bible, it's totally consistent to assume that there was no death before the Fall.”
“As for when humanity (what was here and what wasn't) first appeared and the age of the earth, I think that any conclusion you draw is still open. All I'm sure of is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.”
I then said this:
“Tell me one scientist, peer-reviewed and published in the relevant fields, who believes (based on empirical evidence) that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that humanity was derived from them, denying evolution, genetic ancestry, anthropology, palaeontology and so on. You have sunk to new lows.
OK, imagine you dug up a couple of crackpots. Should I believe, if I am not an expert in the field, the theories of ‘scientists’ that would account for a statistical null in the relevant field? You have a bizarre and rather cherry-picking take on epistemology and plausibility.”
To which you said:
“I'd think you would have to prove that they were wrong before dismissing them....that is if you were honest.”And
“You provide your credentials, degrees, and where you went to school and I'll give you "one scientist, peer-reviewed and published in the relevant fields, who believes (based on empirical evidence) that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that humanity was derived from them". Show me yours, I'll show you mine.”
And that last quote did it for me. It confirmed why I never want to speak to you again. What twat says that? This is an logical argument. It is about self-evident content. I do not need to give you peer-reviewed anything with regards to a logical argument. This is a terrible smokescreen, like a child on the playground, “I won’t do this if you do that!” Come on, how old are you?
So you don't see the inconsistency in claiming to see credentials and peer-reviewed articles from a scientist who accepts Adam & Eve as real people but not willing to back up your own authority the same way? The smoke screen is yours. The immaturity is yours. You actually seem to have the arrogance to just assume that I have to just accept all of your premises and conclusion. I want to see if you really have a background in the fields you say you know something about. Your logic is self-evidently wrong because your presuppositions and understanding of the Christian Worldview are flawed. It's only fair since you would want the same of a scientist who believes Genesis is true. .
Do you know what, I would love not to have any qualifications, not to have written books, do what I do, have the job I have, be a founder member of a philosophy group etc etc etc. I would love to be completely qualificationless. Why? To show you that it makes fuck all difference to the argument I make.
Qualifications you have not stated. Books you have not given the reference for or links to. The name of this Philosophy group? You haven't even used your full name. This might as well be anonymous. If none of this makes a difference than why would a peer-reviewed article, book, or Journal? Answer that, and I will give you the references. Otherwise, I'd be wasting my valuable time.
When interpreting empirical data using techniques and methodology necessary for the field in presenting or disproving a hypothesis on the dating of fossil remains for early man? Well, then I would need peer-reviewed scientific analysis. I gave a philosophical argument.
So Philosophy gets you a "get-out-of-proof-free" card? Who knew? I thought anyone interested in truth evaluates everything and not just at face value. I'm just supposed to have blind faith that you know what you are talking about? I don't think so.
Hey Socrates? Hey Aristotle? Hey Augustine? Hey Calvin? What were your university qualifications? Was your work peer-reviewed? Well then you are not entitled to put forward a philosophical argument or discourse!!! What do you mean, it’s irrelevant to this discipline? Oh, of course…
For the times and places in which they lived they had equivalent university qualification. On top of that their work proves their qualification. You however have provided nothing. Of course you claim it's not relevant to this discipline. How....convenient. Glad I went into Engineering, Physics, and Information Technology. instead Sheesh!
Let us see what you have done:
1) accepted that the earth is 4.5 billion years old
2) claimed that Adam and Eve were the first humans
3) claimed the historical verisimilitude of the Fall
4) Claimed plate tectonics either did not exist or did not kill anything before the Fall
5) Denied cherry-picking your science
Yup, where's your rebuttal other than ad hominem rhetoric?
6) When asked to show proof for scientists and evidence that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, rather than providing it, you demand I show you my qualifications which are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. For example, I couldn’t give two shits what your qualifications are since they are irrelevant. If you were entirely confident with this evidence, you would be more than happy to show it, even though it represents a statistical null proportion of scientists in the relevant field.
Let peer-reviewed evolutionary biologist explain a little, just on the topic of genetics:
“Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.
Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.
These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.”
Dude, I know that's what some scientists are saying now. How is being skeptical of that "Cherry Picking"? You say you are a scholar, but you would just toss a reference like that without a link or a footnote? Some proof that you didn't just write it? You say you teach students and imply that it's at a university, would you accept that from a student? Just asking. I'm not arguing against the evidence. I'm just skeptical of the conclusion. I think that one day science will catch up with the Bible. I can see this is how you work: sneak in all kinds of conclusions like rejecting the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, while pretending that we have all the evidence to come to the conclusion you have already presupposed.
I won’t bother introducing all the other disciplines. As Christianity Today states:#
“the emerging science could be seen to challenge not only what Genesis records about the creation of humanity but the species’s unique status as bearing the “image of God,” Christian doctrine on original sin and the Fall, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, and, perhaps most significantly, Paul’s teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ (Rom.5:12-19; 1 Cor.15:20-23; and his speech in Acts 17.”
The problem is, YOU, like Pastor Tim Keller, HAVE to believe in them, otherwise good ole Paul had it all wrong!
The problem is YOU and other atheist HAVE to disbelieve in them to continue in you rebellion against God and persist in your Godlessness. You haven't demonstrated anything.
“[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument—that both sin and grace work “covenantally’—falls apart. You can’t say that Paul was a ‘man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.”
If you don't believe, you have thrown out the entire Bible.
People like Harrell realise that science disproves Adam and Eve from all sorts of angles, so they shoehorn in an ad hoc argument:
Harrell might. But I don't. And I disagree that science disprove Adam and Eve but it does help our interpretation. For example, the Bible does not say that the earth is only 6000 years old. People assume that.
Harrell: “God created [Adam & Eve] supernaturally, midstream in evolution’s flow. To create in such a way would require that God also put in place a DNA history, since human origins genetically trace back to earlier, common ancestors.”
Oh yeah, right.
I don't buy it either. But accepting it or rejecting it, doesn't make you a Christian. In short, You've added nothing, but you also haven't rebutted or defending anything as usual.
Of course, you entirely have to disown evolution too, since all the animals poofed into existence in the Garden of Eden. Oh yeah, right.
There are a lot of scientists who would not agree that Darwinian Evolution is the best explanation even if you and Harrell does. And not all of them are Christians. David Berlinski comes to mind. In short, basing your rejection of God and the Bible and using the theory of Evolution as a reason why is pretty silly.
This might interest you (it seems BioLogos are prepared to accept A and E as untenable). http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/
Nice to see that you you know how to post a link when you want to. Thing is just because some Christians have chosen to change their view of Biblical authority and their doctrines in light of Darwinian evolution does not mean I should. I won't go as far as not calling them Christians because what you believe about human origins does not mean that you don't love and accept Jesus Christ and it's possible that human being to believe contradictory things at the same time. Science will one day catch up with the Bible in terms of our understanding of human origins as it has in several other field. .
What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #137 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 6