To beat a dead horse

[mrs]

The big bang theory does not say that matter and energy have existed forever. In fact the big bang theory implies that time does not extend back infinitely far. Time and space emerged from the big bang singularity with matter and energy.

Kind of funny how that conflicts with the idea that you cannot create something from nothing. Doncha' think?

What's that they say? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, just converted from one form into another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You got it exactly

[Fiosh]

Hi Logician:

May I ask how long ago did you give up your Christian beliefs? If you've already answered this, I apologize, but I can't find it in the previous posts.

You are absolutely right, you can not get all the way to God thru reason. As I said to Fog awhile back, reason can only bring you to the brink...faith must carry you across the dark chasm.

It's not easy for someone with a logical, questioning mind to believe the "absurd" things we do. Those who don't delve beneath the surface of Christianity have a much easier time. I've experienced doubt from time to time myself. So did Peter.

But, each time I get beyond my doubts, I get even deeper into my relationship with Jesus. The spiritual world is a reality. And, Satan will expend more energy to entangle those who truly work at their faith. But He that is in you is greater than he that is in the world.

Somehow I feel that one day you will emerge as a true soldier of Christ, ready to take on the powers of hell to defend His Name. (don't ask, it's one of "those" feelings)

Dry spells can last a long time, sometimes years. I hope some day you once again reach out and find the hand of God.

In His Love,

Fiosh

[Logician]

Holy moley. Who do I answer first?

Eenie... meenie... miney... moe...

Eh. I'll go in order.

Can a complete and perfect God not decide to create something? God is full' date=' complete, and satisfied in the Godhead - yet what would prevent Him from desiring to make creatures to share that perfectness with Him?[/quote']

If he's complete, he has no wants, by definition. If he has no wants, he has no motivation to do *anything* except exist in a state of completion. It's in the definition.

I don't understand how a free will is a design flaw.

Alrightey. Definition check.

Do you distinguish at all between free will and tendency to sin? I was operating mostly under the assumption that you do, like most Christians I've come across, but if you don't, then you're right, this particular argument is invalid when operating under the beliefs that I'm beginning to suspect you hold.

Er. The who in the what now?

Maybe it's me, but I'm not following your logic here at all... God creating humans with free will makes him a dictator? Is this supposed to apply to the second argument or something?

I'm sorry. I was saying - you accuse God of creating evil because He gave man the capacity of choosing right or wrong.So what I wanted to know is what you would have said if He'd created us as robots. If we were robots, wouldn't you say then that makes God a selfish dictator - as in, just making slaves?

Again, I'm beginning to think that you believe a tendency to sin to be a necessity to free will.

However, I'd actually take exception to the stance that we're not just "robots." We're a bit more unpredictable, (although we wouldn't be to an omniscent God) and composed of neurons and muscles rather than circuitry and motors, and we're more sophisticated than anything we're currently capable of creating, but according to what I believe, we operate on entirely physical principals, which places us just about with robots as biomechanical machines.

And, from what I've seen, there's some evidence to back this up. Certainly not sufficient evidence to say with absolute certainty so far, as we don't have sufficient technology, but quite a bit.

Anyway, even assuming that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (apparently a sin, even though they apparently had no idea what a sin was at that time... but that's a story for another day), it's God that creates us, one by one, before he puts us in our mother's wombs, according to the Bible. It's his choice whether to create us perfect (as he did Adam and Eve) but he gives us a tendency to sin anyway. Adam and Eve may be to blame for their own mistakes, but apparently God created me directly and put me in the womb with this annoying tendency to sin. You might call this tendency to sin "free will," but the Bible indicates that Adam and Eve had free will without sin. If this is possible, (and, everything is...) God could create us like that (and have beings with free will but not a sinful nature) as was his intent in the beginning.

So, really, he created the world with Adam and Eve and decided that if they ate of the fruit, he'd create every human being from then on with original sin, and throw them into hell if they followed it.

It's like dangling a poisoned porkchop in front of a dog's nose.

The sinful nature started with Adam. "Wherfore as by one man sin entered the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."Romans 5:12

From what I understand of the Bible, free will came at Adam and Eve's creation. Sinful nature (which I've been using interchangeably so far with original sin. If you wish, I'll adopt a different set of definitions here.) started with the consumption of the fruit. Is this in line with what you believe?

God does create us and form us yes, but the sinful nature is part of us from conception. This is one reason it is called the curse of sin. Adam's sin did not just affect him - it affects the entire human race. It also affects the whole of nature.

Man is born with the desire to sin. We are all the enemies of God - we have no natural desire to seek after or obey Him. Yet He still loves us and takes an interest in our lives.

You are coming from the misconception that God puts into each of us the sin nature. The actual fact is that it is passed down from Adam. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."I Corinthians 15:22

So you do distinguish between free will and sinful nature?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're making them two different concepts when it's convenient and calling them the same thing when it's convenient.

And in referrence to God's 'tempting' of Adam and Eve...the point is they had no reason to rebel. He gave them everything.A perfect garden,perfect world, perfect life. But they choose to listen to Satan's lies - which were built on pride of self. And if you look through history, pride has always been man's biggest problem.

But... apparently they had no knowledge of what was good or evil when they were tempted by Satan, not even that pride or dispbedience was a sin. So, how is it their fault and why do they deserve punishment if they ate of the fruit?

***************************************

Kind of funny how that conflicts with the idea that you cannot create something from nothing. Doncha' think?

What's that they say? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, just converted from one form into another.

a) Nobody has ever stated that such conservation laws apply anywhere but inside the universe. While matter and energy were spewed out of the big bang, nobody has made the claim (as nobody has sufficient evidence) that the mass and energy originated there. However, if it has a previous history somewhere outside our universe, it bares no relavence as none of its previous structure could have lasted through the big bang singularity.

b) The law of conservation of matter (actually mass) and the law of conservation of energy are both obsolete. They've been replaced by a combined law stating that matter and energy (together as one entity) are conserved. You can think of it as (matter + energy) = constant. However, matter can be converted into energy, and energy into matter as we know thanks to Einstein.

***************************************

Some of the evidence you put forward I will have to check into and get back to you with answers.

The problem with evolution is not all these details - it is in the roots of the whole theory. Supposedly a single celled creatur, over millions of years and through different species changes and such was able to produce the vast variety in the world today.

One or a very few.

It was simply a process of "descent with modification."

And, it only sounds preposterous when one puts it as you have, just as "light is a particle, but is at the same time a wave" or even "the same force that pulls you to the ground keeps the moon in orbit around the earth" does at first blush. However, both have been proved throughout history.

If you're going to try to disprove evolution, do so by attempting to show an invalidity in the theory, not by trying to oversimplified generalizations that make the theory sound bad. If what you've stated above is valid, then so is "and the earth somehow reached all the way up there to the moon, some 360,000 to 405,000 kilometers and pushes the moon around itself?"

Now there is one word which rather wrecks the theory of evolution : information

Information only comes from information. I am curious how a single celled organism came to have the vast amount of information necessary to produce the thousands of different varieties of animals out there - let alone humans.

I really don't think there's any theory or law of conservation of information. If there was, there would be no way a musician could perform a musical piece. A composer would be unable to write a piece. There'd be no formulation of new scientific theories at all. So, "information only comes from information" is invalid.

With a selective process (as well as other processes), be it natural or artificial selection, new information can be generated.

DNA itself is not information - it is merely a carrier of it.Now I don't know if you believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, but it is still an established idea. So, taking just this one example..there are a multitude of differences between a dinosaur and a bird.How or where would a dinosaur get the information to evolve into a bird? It would logically only have information for being a dinosaur - and the new information couldn't just drop out of the sky. So where did it come from?

If you insist on working on terms of information, I suppose where the information came in was with competitive pressures. The members of a generation who performed poorly (in this case, most likely the ones that couldn't get away from predators fast enough using their wings) were eaten. Those that did (in this case, the ones that did get away from predators quickly) survived.

So, putting that into terms of information (which I hesitate to do as I don't think it really applies all that strongly here), the ones with the right information (the ones that were more geared toward flying) survived, and the ones with the wrong information (the ones that weren't geared toward flying) didn't.

***************************************

Hi Logician:

May I ask how long ago did you give up your Christian beliefs? If you've already answered this, I apologize, but I can't find it in the previous posts.

About... maybe 2 years ago? Maybe 2+1/2. Somewhere around there. (I have a horrible memory for such things. )

You are absolutely right, you can not get all the way to God thru reason. As I said to Fog awhile back, reason can only bring you to the brink...faith must carry you across the dark chasm.

It's not easy for someone with a logical, questioning mind to believe the "absurd" things we do. Those who don't delve beneath the surface of Christianity have a much easier time. I've experienced doubt from time to time myself. So did Peter.

A couple of quick questions. Do you believe it to be beneficial (at least to your faith) to avoid "delving beneath the surface of Christianity?" Do you find it beneficial (to your faith) to avoid learning of science?

Don't worry. I'm not going to attack or try to oppose your response, (unless you ask for my perspective). I just want to see your take on it.

But, each time I get beyond my doubts, I get even deeper into my relationship with Jesus. The spiritual world is a reality. And, Satan will expend more energy to entangle those who truly work at their faith. But He that is in you is greater than he that is in the world.

Somehow I feel that one day you will emerge as a true soldier of Christ, ready to take on the powers of hell to defend His Name. (don't ask, it's one of "those" feelings)

Well, I guess it's possible. Should I experience something I feel to be a theophany, it may happen.

Dry spells can last a long time, sometimes years. I hope some day you once again reach out and find the hand of God.

In His Love,

Fiosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

~Edit: Argh. What on earth is wrong with the quotes lately?

Edited May 11, 2005 by Logician

[Gerioke]

Hey, I thought this was about cartoons

[Logician]

You're right. I have no idea how on earth we got onto this subject from the subject of Japanese Animation.

(And, BTW, I know many who would be offended at having anime called "cartoons.")

Anyway, in the interest of getting somewhat back on subject...

One of my questions that hasn't really gotten answered (I didn't really notice this until just a few minutes ago) is if you would avoid buying things from companies that also support anime.

For instance, seeing as the Pokemon trading card game, Magic the Gathering, and Dungeons and Dragons are all produced by Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, would you avoid buying Playschool toys because Playschool is also a subsidiary of Hasbro?

Do you think Ouija boards are evil (mostly a rhetorical question, as I imagine the answer will be universally "yes")? Then would you avoid buying the Monopoly game because Matel produces both?

[Fiosh]

Hey, I thought this was about cartoons

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess the Spirit blows where he will.

Logician: to answer your question...

I believe it is beneficial to delve deeply into the Word and into the Truth. However, I also believe it is risky. The "spiritual realm" is very real.

For the sake of logical argument, can you assume for a moment that God and Satan and all the angels and demons do exist in a very real way.

Now, assume that there is an on-going battle between God and the "principalities", and that we are the "territory" being fought for. We are also warriors in the battle itself.

Ok, so who will the enemy attack with more force? Those warriors who are sitting on the sidelines, barely aware that there is a war raging around them; or those in the thick of it ,fighting with all their might?

If I were Satan, my plan would be to keep my eye on those that were complacent. And throw all I've got against those that were in the heat of battle.

Logically, that just makes sense.

I once shared with a Christian friend, a true lover of Jesus, that I sometimes have temptations of doubt; those passing thoughts of "what if", that send me to my knees asking for stronger faith. His response was, "I never question what I believe. You are very intense. I guess the devil doesn't feel I'm worth spending time on. But you he goes after."

Maybe, maybe not. Just my opinion.

Two years ago, I began a "street apostolate" with a group in my Church. (i.e. stand on the corner talking to people about Jesus". My partner asked if I was afraid to be there in those "seedy" neighborhoods?

I told him that I was perfectly at ease (surprisingly). What scared me was the thought of what Satan would do, now that I had stepped unto the battlefield.

And, yes, the attack has gotten worse.

But, praise God, He that is in me, is greater than He that is in the world.

Keep searching, Logician, the search for Truth will eventually bring you back to He that IS THE Truth.

God bless you,

Fiosh

[Gerioke]

  You're right.  I have no idea how on earth we got onto this subject from the subject of Japanese Animation.

(And, BTW, I know many who would be offended at having anime called "cartoons.")

Anyway, in the interest of getting somewhat back on subject...

One of my questions that hasn't really gotten answered (I didn't really notice this until just a few minutes ago) is if you would avoid buying things from companies that also support anime.

For instance, seeing as the Pokemon trading card game, Magic the Gathering, and Dungeons and Dragons are all produced by Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, would you avoid buying Playschool toys because Playschool is also a subsidiary of Hasbro?

Do you think Ouija boards are evil (mostly a rhetorical question, as I imagine the answer will be universally "yes")?  Then would you avoid buying the Monopoly game because Matel produces both?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you're allergic to fish, do you stop eating chips?

What does buying gasoline support?

Monopoly is a game about money. If we play it are we worshipping mammon?

I think monopoly is parker brothers.

I find hasboro toys just plain expensive. My kids have been more inclined to play with the box that the toy comes in. At least with play school anyways. I'm still reeling because shreddies is made by post now and not nabisco.

I can't stand the Buffalo Sabres but I still enjoy a Leaf game.

What point was I trying to make?

Sometimes even I don't understand me

[nebula]

Can a complete and perfect God not decide to create something? God is full, complete, and satisfied in the Godhead - yet what would prevent Him from desiring to make creatures to share that perfectness with Him?

If he's complete, he has no wants, by definition. If he has no wants, he has no motivation to do *anything* except exist in a state of completion. It's in the definition.

~Edit: Argh. What on earth is wrong with the quotes lately?

For some reason, quotes don't work if there are too many in one post.

That's computers for ya!

*******************************************************

Anyway, although this argument sounds logical, it has a flaw.

This argument fails to consider LOVE.

Do you know what love is?

And I mean the bredth and depth of love - not just the romantic type, but the whole incorporation and extension of love.

You say completion means having no needs or wants and thus no motivation.

Ah! But what is love if there is nothing or no one to love?

To be complete and whole has nothing to do with what one possesses. If you studied religions as you have, you should have learned this.

[nebula]

Hey, I thought this was about cartoons

Well I was thinking the other day

What if cartoons got saved?

They'd start singing praise in a whole new way!

Fred and Wilma Flintstone sing: "Yabba-dabba-do-lu-yah!"

Scooby-do and Shaggy: "Scooby-dooby-doo-loo-yah!"

And the Jetson's dog named Astro: "Rough-ray-roo-loo-yah"

. . . .

(And, BTW, I know many who would be offended at having anime called "cartoons.")

Boy, ain't that the truth!

One of my questions that hasn't really gotten answered (I didn't really notice this until just a few minutes ago) is if you would avoid buying things from companies that also support anime.

Hmmm . . . If I stopped buying from companies that supported things I objected to, would I even be able to buy a bar of soap?

[mrs]

If he's complete, he has no wants, by definition. If he has no wants, he has no motivation to do *anything* except exist in a state of completion. It's in the definition.

I'll save time and say I agree with neb's answer on this.

Do you distinguish at all between free will and tendency to sin? I was operating mostly under the assumption that you do, like most Christians I've come across, but if you don't, then you're right, this particular argument is invalid when operating under the beliefs that I'm beginning to suspect you hold.

Again, I'm beginning to think that you believe a tendency to sin to be a necessity to free will.

Maybe I'm dumb, but I'm confused here . In order to have free will, wouldn't we have to be able to choose between right and wrong? The whole point of free will is having the freedom to choose between two options right?

However, I'd actually take exception to the stance that we're not just "robots." We're a bit more unpredictable, (although we wouldn't be to an omniscent God) and composed of neurons and muscles rather than circuitry and motors, and we're more sophisticated than anything we're currently capable of creating, but according to what I believe, we operate on entirely physical principals, which places us just about with robots as biomechanical machines.

If we are basically just 'biomechanical machines' then how do you explain the conscience? If we are nothing more than glorified animals where did we get this basic knowledge of right and wrong?

From what I understand of the Bible, free will came at Adam and Eve's creation. Sinful nature (which I've been using interchangeably so far with original sin. If you wish, I'll adopt a different set of definitions here.) started with the consumption of the fruit. Is this in line with what you believe?

I would agree, though technically the sinful nature began the moment they purposed in their heart to disobey God.

So you do distinguish between free will and sinful nature?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're making them two different concepts when it's convenient and calling them the same thing when it's convenient.

Free will is what God gave Adam and Eve. Sinful nature is what we now all inherit from Adam. Sorry, I'm not that good at these logical discussions.Maybe I'll just be

But... apparently they had no knowledge of what was good or evil when they were tempted by Satan, not even that pride or dispbedience was a sin. So, how is it their fault and why do they deserve punishment if they ate of the fruit?

They knew it was wrong to eat the fruit.Eve told Satan the rules that God had laid out (though she twisted them slightly) - so they obviously knew what God had commanded.By purposely going against the commandment of God they sinned. No one made them eat the fruit, therefore it is their fault. And sin always deserves punishment.

***************************************

It was simply a process of "descent with modification."

That doesn't even make sense.The whole thing of evolution is going upward - into more and more complex creatures correct? So then how can this be called 'descent' ?

I really don't think there's any theory or law of conservation of information. If there was, there would be no way a musician could perform a musical piece. A composer would be unable to write a piece. There'd be no formulation of new scientific theories at all. So, "information only comes from information" is invalid.

I'm sorry - I didn't explain that well enough. Information only comes from information, which comes from intelligence. So how could there be information (as in what's written in DNA) without an intelligence behind it?

With a selective process (as well as other processes), be it natural or artificial selection, new information can be generated.

How? If you're talking natural selection, that only works with info that is already there - as in adaption of species. That is not evolution, for they haven't changed into a different species.

If you insist on working on terms of information, I suppose where the information came in was with competitive pressures. The members of a generation who performed poorly (in this case, most likely the ones that couldn't get away from predators fast enough using their wings) were eaten. Those that did (in this case, the ones that did get away from predators quickly) survived.

So, putting that into terms of information (which I hesitate to do as I don't think it really applies all that strongly here), the ones with the right information (the ones that were more geared toward flying) survived, and the ones with the wrong information (the ones that weren't geared toward flying) didn't.

Again, that is no proof of evolution. All you have is one species ( I believe we are talking birds here? ) changing within itself. There is no gradual change into another. As in, take all the different dog breeds. People point to that and say that is proof of evolution. Is it? No, it's just dogs. Nothing special about them.

"Just as letters of the alphabet will not write the Annals of Ennius by themselves, the DNA letters will not form meaningful sequences on their own. And just as the Annals would be meaningless to a person who didn

Edited May 11, 2005 by smiles