Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Infinitely lazy God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
    I did provide a reference. I provided it in my previous post and I even quoted from it. I'm not sure what else you want me to do
    Your references were unclear, and the one concerning Saint Augustine misrepresents his actual view that my source quoted him directly.

    You did not cite one early church father nor early theologian that did offer a different view than the literal Genesis belief. Your source, did not cite specific source of early church fathers or theologians.

    Also not to mention all groups quote the early church fathers to support their views which is also noted in this document.
    Please provide the citation specifically. Dr, John Williams is a chemist and did not cite any early church fathers that held a different view. His citations are very recent. Your tertiary sources do not accurately cite any early church fathers. Still waiting . . .
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-03-2015, 09:42 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Your references were unclear, and the one concerning Saint Augustine misrepresents his actual view that my source quoted him directly.

      You did not cite one early church father nor early theologian that did offer a different view than the literal Genesis belief. Your source, did not cite specific source of early church fathers or theologians.



      Please provide the citation specifically. Dr, John Williams is a chemist and did not cite any early church fathers that held a different view. His citations are very recent. Your tertiary sources do not accurately cite any early church fathers. Still waiting . . .

      Found your evidence on Aquinas yet? Let's see you cite his actual argument, or a modern version of it, and support your claim that it is circular, and assumes God's existence from the beginning.

      Still waiting....
      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Your references were unclear, and the one concerning Saint Augustine misrepresents his actual view that my source quoted him directly.

        You did not cite one early church father nor early theologian that did offer a different view than the literal Genesis belief. Your source, did not cite specific source of early church fathers or theologians.
        Well Augustine believed in instantaneous creation which is different from the 6 days view of creation, although he admits that he doesn't really understand the concept behind the creation days.

        Also this article goes through the different quotes form early church fathers. Especially these from Augustine.

        There are other quotes there from the other church fathers showing their particular beliefs on it.
        “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
          Found your evidence on Aquinas yet? Let's see you cite his actual argument, or a modern version of it, and support your claim that it is circular, and assumes God's existence from the beginning.

          Still waiting....
          What Aquinas assumes is that there is a first cause. Does God have a cause? No. Then neither does the Cosmos/energy need a first cause. Is God is an unmoved mover? Then how did he initiate motion? The reason motion is said to need something to cause it to move, is because that which causes it to move is also in motion. Is God necessary existence and all else contingent? Well, he would be if he existed, but Necessity and contingency are reflexive as in energy and matter and so there is no need to make a distinction between necessity and contingency. Is God the greatest degree of prefection, goodness? Then he must also be the greatest degree of imperfection, evil. If as Aquinas argues, existence, the physical laws and the order seen in nature, requires an intelligent designer, then why doesn't Gods own existence require an intelligent designer?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
            Well Augustine believed in instantaneous creation which is different from the 6 days view of creation, although he admits that he doesn't really understand the concept behind the creation days.


            Also this article goes through the different quotes form early church fathers. Especially these from Augustine.
            Already addressed that with direst quotes from Saint Augustine. Your source, like other sources, misrepresents Him. Again, from the 'City of God;'

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



            “The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

            In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10


            From this we realize that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

            He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.

            © Copyright Original Source



            There are other quotes there from the other church fathers showing their particular beliefs on it.
            Please cite the church fathers directly. The citations you gave did not cite the church fathers directly. I have checked other sources, and can cite them directly if you wish. Other church fathers that supported a literal interpretation of Genesis were; Origen, Lactactius and Clement of Alexander.

            It is also true that the Rabbinical teachings of the times were a literal Genesis.

            The only detractors of the period were pagans who proposed beliefs similar thoughts, to the scientific modern view, like Lucretius of Rome. Actually, the church fathers actually strongly rejected any other views of the origins of the universe, life, and humanity, and rejected them calling them pagan.

            Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

            2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Already addressed that with direst quotes from Saint Augustine. Your source, like other sources, misrepresents Him. Again, from the 'City of God;'

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



              “The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

              In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10


              From this we realize that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

              He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.

              © Copyright Original Source





              Please cite the church fathers directly. The citations you gave did not cite the church fathers directly. I have checked other sources, and can cite them directly if you wish. Other church fathers that supported a literal interpretation of Genesis were; Origen, Lactactius and Clement of Alexander.

              It is also true that the Rabbinical teachings of the times were a literal Genesis.

              The only detractors of the period were pagans who proposed beliefs similar thoughts, to the scientific modern view, like Lucretius of Rome. Actually, the church fathers actually strongly rejected any other views of the origins of the universe, life, and humanity, and rejected them calling them pagan.

              Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

              2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.
              If you want to believe Young Earth Creationists on the issue then fair enough. There isn't a lot more than I can provide you. I don't believe their assessment on the situation so if you excuse me I have better things to do with my time than to debate tomahto over tomayto.
              “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                If you want to believe Young Earth Creationists on the issue then fair enough. There isn't a lot more than I can provide you. I don't believe their assessment on the situation so if you excuse me I have better things to do with my time than to debate tomahto over tomayto.
                I will take this as a duck, bob and weave act with dog and pony show that your not able to back up your claims.

                The fact remains that the literal interpretation of Genesis has dominated the history of Christianity from its beginning, with only alternative movements arising after 1600!!

                There were no alternative beliefs among the church fathers and theologians in church history up until the 1600s
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  What Aquinas assumes is that there is a first cause. Does God have a cause? No. Then neither does the Cosmos/energy need a first cause. Is God is an unmoved mover? Then how did he initiate motion? The reason motion is said to need something to cause it to move, is because that which causes it to move is also in motion. Is God necessary existence and all else contingent? Well, he would be if he existed, but Necessity and contingency are reflexive as in energy and matter and so there is no need to make a distinction between necessity and contingency. Is God the greatest degree of prefection, goodness? Then he must also be the greatest degree of imperfection, evil. If as Aquinas argues, existence, the physical laws and the order seen in nature, requires an intelligent designer, then why doesn't Gods own existence require an intelligent designer?
                  This is very confused. Please cite exactly which of Aquinas' arguments you're responding to.
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    I will take this as a duck, bob and weave act with dog and pony show that your not able to back up your claims.

                    I'm taking your failure to support your claims about Aquinas' arguments as Shunya's "duck, bob and weave act". Just what I expected.

                    You're unwilling to address anything but strawmen.
                    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I will take this as a duck, bob and weave act with dog and pony show that your not able to back up your claims.
                      This isn't constructive. The fact that this is how you reply just shows you're not interested in what I have to say on the issue.

                      I provided my sources already, you don't agree with them and that's fine I don't care. I don't agree with the creationists that the church fathers are being misquoted. I don't think they are being misquoted at all.

                      The fact remains that the literal interpretation of Genesis has dominated the history of Christianity from its beginning, with only alternative movements arising after 1600!!

                      There were no alternative beliefs among the church fathers and theologians in church history up until the 1600s
                      I disagree but it doesn't matter. You hang on to your ideas I don't really care about changing your mind. Past experience shows me that you have your ideas and they won't be changed no matter what is shown.

                      it doesn't matter to me one jot. It wasn't part of orthodoxy so I don't really care either way.
                      “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        God is the sea and we are the fishes.
                        Fish crap in the sea.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                          This isn't constructive. The fact that this is how you reply just shows you're not interested in what I have to say on the issue.

                          I provided my sources already, you don't agree with them and that's fine I don't care. I don't agree with the creationists that the church fathers are being misquoted. I don't think they are being misquoted at all.

                          I disagree but it doesn't matter. You hang on to your ideas I don't really care about changing your mind. Past experience shows me that you have your ideas and they won't be changed no matter what is shown.

                          it doesn't matter to me one jot. It wasn't part of orthodoxy so I don't really care either way.
                          It is not a matter of interest in what you have to say (but your opinion would hardly be an authority), nor an issue of orthodoxy. The church fathers and early theologians determined the belief of the flock through history. It is a matter of fact and all the references available, ALL the church fathers, and theologians believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have failed to provide any first person references that would support there was an alternative among Christians. There were of course alternatives among the pagans, but not Christians, until after ~1600. and nothing comprehensive until after Darwin in the 19th century.

                          You also failed to respond to the authority source that the church fathers and early theologians relied on for guidance.

                          Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

                          2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

                          According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            Fish crap in the sea.
                            Where there is life, there is crap, and it grows beautiful roses.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              It is not a matter of interest in what you have to say (but your opinion would hardly be an authority), nor an issue of orthodoxy. The church fathers and early theologians determined the belief of the flock through history. It is a matter of fact and all the references available, ALL the church fathers, and theologians believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have failed to provide any first person references that would support there was an alternative among Christians. There were of course alternatives among the pagans, but not Christians, until after ~1600. and nothing comprehensive until after Darwin in the 19th century.

                              You also failed to respond to the authority source that the church fathers and early theologians relied on for guidance.

                              Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

                              2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

                              According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.
                              Which translation is that? Here's what I'm finding for 2 Peter 3:8

                              2 Peter 3:8New International Version (NIV)

                              8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                It is not a matter of interest in what you have to say (but your opinion would hardly be an authority), nor an issue of orthodoxy. The church fathers and early theologians determined the belief of the flock through history. It is a matter of fact and all the references available, ALL the church fathers, and theologians believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have failed to provide any first person references that would support there was an alternative among Christians. There were of course alternatives among the pagans, but not Christians, until after ~1600. and nothing comprehensive until after Darwin in the 19th century.

                                You also failed to respond to the authority source that the church fathers and early theologians relied on for guidance.

                                Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

                                2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

                                According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.
                                Don't you believe that Moses was a manifestation of God Shuny? Isn't that what your religion teaches? So this manifestation of God got the whole creation story wrong?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, 11-01-2021, 08:51 PM
                                68 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Ronson, 10-31-2021, 10:01 AM
                                7 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by eider, 10-24-2021, 01:23 AM
                                356 responses
                                1,874 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post DesertBerean  
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
                                460 responses
                                2,832 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X