The Infinitely lazy God?

[firstfloor]

it's anti-theists I have a problem with.

I am anti-theist in the same way that I am anti-seven being the sum of two and three.

[Darth Ovious]

My comprehension is fine. In context you described the first floor as 'Ignorant drivel,' and expected second hand references to do the arguing for you, which is equivalent to arguing by web link.

Well first floor did say that theists only believe what they believe because they are too stupid to think about things on their own merits. Surely even you have to disagree with that. You are not a member of the Baha'i faith because you're stupid and can't think for yourself. You are a member of the Baha'i faith because you think it makes sense.

[Darth Ovious]

I am anti-theist in the same way that I am anti-seven being the sum of two and three.

So far your track record doesn't look too good but I usually give people an opportunity to show themselves for what they are.

[shunyadragon]

I think you are pre-supposing here that explanations by Christians cannot be real explanations.

No, presupposition applies. I have followed these arguments for many years on Tweb, and yes, when it comes to dialoguing or debating atheists, the modus operandi is hostility and name calling.

Apart from young earth creationism I don't agree with that assessment at all. I am a theistic evolutionist and YEC wasn't a movement until after the English interpretation of the Bible came about in the 1600's. So my religion functioned for over 1600 years without it.

I disagree on your assessment of when and how the YEC world view came apart of the beliefs of Christianity. I believe a literal understanding of the Bible was very much the understanding of the apostles and most church fathers including a literal flood and Adam and Eve, including a Heliocentric Aristotelian universe as described in Genesis. Nonetheless, the justification of Adam and Eve, the Fall, Original Sin, and the world flood remain problematic in justifying the Christian world view in the light of the universal and today's knowledge. It remains a problem that between 40 and over 50% of the Christians inn the USA reject evolution, believe in a literal flood and seven day Creation world history based on the testimony of the apostles and church fathers.

Ancient world views remain problematic, because of the limited perspective of the culture from which they arose regardless of whether they are Jewish (resolves most issues by Midrash and severe pragmatism), Christianity, Islam, Vedic (Hinduism) Religion, and many others consider there view the only 'True' view.

[shunyadragon]

So Shuny, obviously if this is your standard, your god cares nothing for mankind.

My God cares and all His Creation is noble and purposeful with humanity as the noble Souls and Talisman of His Creation, and does not shame humanity with 'Original Sin' by setting up the first humans for the Fall, and not taking responsibility for his Creation

[firstfloor]

I think you are pre-supposing here that explanations by Christians cannot be real explanations.

Christians are rational. Theology is possible if you accept that at least one god exists. The problem is that you can do something similar for characters in a novel by Charles Dickens (Dickensology). For theology to be a subject at all you need prima facie evidence of a god. That defect is just ignored in religions or you hear apologists like William Lane Craig using bad arguments such as nothing comes from nothing, therefore eternal (Christian) God (of the Bible).

Well, show me the arithmetic Bill.

[JonathanL]

or you hear apologists like William Lane Craig using bad arguments such as nothing comes from nothing, therefore eternal (Christian) God (of the Bible).

WLC has never used any argument like that, but good try.

[Darth Ovious]

No, presupposition applies. I have followed these arguments for many years on Tweb, and yes, when it comes to dialoguing or debating atheists, the modus operandi is hostility and name calling.

Except an ad hom argument is name calling instead of giving an argument. I always seen both an argument given in addition to the name calling. I have seen theists give arguments without any hostility or name calling at all. I too posted here for a few years before the TWeb crash and I too am all too familiar with the people who post here.

I disagree on your assessment of when and how the YEC world view came apart of the beliefs of Christianity. I believe a literal understanding of the Bible was very much the understanding of the apostles and most church fathers including a literal flood and Adam and Eve, including a Heliocentric Aristotelian universe as described in Genesis. Nonetheless, the justification of Adam and Eve, the Fall, Original Sin, and the world flood remain problematic in justifying the Christian world view in the light of the universal and today's knowledge. It remains a problem that between 40 and over 50% of the Christians inn the USA reject evolution, believe in a literal flood and seven day Creation world history based on the testimony of the apostles and church fathers.

In 1650 the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, published a monumental history of the world from creation to 70 A.D. He used the recorded genealogies and ages in the bible to derive what is commonly known as the Ussher chronology. This calculated a date for creation at 4004 BC. The date was widely accepted in the English-speaking world.

I think this holds the date for young earth creationism.

As for creationism in totality the same source says of Augustine

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creationism#Early_history] In the 5th century, Saint Augustine wrote The Literal Meaning of Genesis in which he argued that Genesis should be interpreted as God forming the Earth and life from pre-existing matter and allowed for an allegorical interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. For example: he argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. [=url]

I think at this point it was contested really.

Ancient world views remain problematic, because of the limited perspective of the culture from which they arose regardless of whether they are Jewish (resolves most issues by Midrash and severe pragmatism), Christianity, Islam, Vedic (Hinduism) Religion, and many others consider there view the only 'True' view.

A date for 4004 years though wasn't really place until 1650 as my first source shows.

[Darth Ovious]

My God cares and all His Creation is noble and purposeful with humanity as the noble Souls and Talisman of His Creation, and does not shame humanity with 'Original Sin' by setting up the first humans for the Fall, and not taking responsibility for his Creation

The story of original sin I interpret it as the beginning of man realising the difference between right and wrong. Hence before hand they had no knowledge of good and evil. I see it as a progression of human beings coming to a realisation of morality.

[shunyadragon]

Well first floor did say that theists only believe what they believe because they are too stupid to think about things on their own merits. Surely even you have to disagree with that. You are not a member of the Baha'i faith because you're stupid and can't think for yourself. You are a member of the Baha'i faith because you think it makes sense.

I do not believe in name calling, whether atheists calling Christians 'stupid,' Christians relying on responses like 'Ignorant drivel,' to describe an atheist view. I consider the atheist argument as superior to the Christian, because it is better ground in the knowledge of today's world. Christianity appeals to an ancient paradigm of limited scope to justify their claim to 'Truth,' which is inherently weak.

I am a theist and a Baha'i and the argument for traditional Christianity makes no sense.

[Darth Ovious]

Christians are rational. Theology is possible if you accept that at least one god exists. The problem is that you can do something similar for characters in a novel by Charles Dickens (Dickensology). For theology to be a subject at all you need prima facie evidence of a god. That defect is just ignored in religions or you hear apologists like William Lane Craig using bad arguments such as nothing comes from nothing, therefore eternal (Christian) God (of the Bible).

Well, show me the arithmetic Bill.

WLC doesn't use that argument but he uses other ones. To a theist the existence of the world is evidence of God. Alistair McGrath used to be an atheist until he studied science and did the same degree as Richard Dawkins. His learning of science is what instigated him to change his mind and become a believer in God because he was amazed at how organised the Universe was. In all retrospect Science only shows the machinations of the Universe. The same way in which you can show how a computer works it does not show you the mind behind the maker of the computer. However, I don't consider it a big jump to assume a creator of these things.

[shunyadragon]

Except an ad hom argument is name calling instead of giving an argument. I always seen both an argument given in addition to the name calling. I have seen theists give arguments without any hostility or name calling at all. I too posted here for a few years before the TWeb crash and I too am all too familiar with the people who post here.



I think this holds the date for young earth creationism.

Martin Luther fully endorsed a literal Biblical view of Creationism prior to this and he did not pull this view out of thin air.

As for creationism in totality the same source says of Augustine



I think at this point it was contested really.

Not completely, Martin Luther did not accept this view, and the other church fathers did not necessarily agree.

A date for 4004 years though wasn't really place until 1650 as my first source shows.

I will cite earlier sources like Martin Luther's view. The apostles most definitely described a literal Adam and Eve and world flood. an example follows, and there will be more.

Source: http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43

The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2


Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3

This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism.

© Copyright Original Source

In reality the Literal Genesis view of Creation in Christianity goes back to the second century AD, and shared by many Rabbis.

[Darth Ovious]

I do not believe in name calling, whether atheists calling Christians 'stupid,' Christians relying on responses like 'Ignorant drivel,' to describe an atheist view. I consider the atheist argument as superior to the Christian, because it is better ground in the knowledge of today's world. Christianity appeals to an ancient paradigm of limited scope to justify their claim to 'Truth,' which is inherently weak.

I am a theist and a Baha'i and the argument for traditional Christianity makes no sense.

The Baha'i faith and the Christian faith do share some tenants. Especially in regards to the topic of this thread. Like I said earlier it would be nice for you to defend some of these tenants.

[firstfloor]

So far your track record doesn't look too good but I usually give people an opportunity to show themselves for what they are.

[Darth Ovious]

Martin Luther fully endorsed a literal Biblical view of Creationism prior to this and he did not pull this view out of thin air.

Perhaps not, but I was just pointing out where the 4004 years for young earth creationism came from. I'm not sure how young Martin Luther thought the earth was.

Not completely, Martin Luther did not accept this view, and the other church fathers did not necessarily agree.

I don't think that these views were enforced though. The young earth creationist theory's are taught now. I don't think the early church fathers were as rigid in their thinking as this. Some of them might have believed in a young earth but I doubt they thought it was mandatory.

I will cite earlier sources like Martin Luther's view. The apostles most definitely described a literal Adam and Eve and world flood.

Not talking about world flood or a literal Adam and Eve. I believe that Adam and Eve existed but I believe that they were among the first humans to evolve. As for the world flood, there is a period where we did get floods across the world and this was due to end of the last ice age. I don't count this as a total world flood but I believe that the word used in scripture talks about the world as Noah knew it. So not the whole entire planet but the world around Noah that he personally knew about.

Here a list of flood accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths