The media (and others) blame God for the bad things that happen - BUT when things are going well God doesn't rate a mention. Very one sided to blame God for everything and don't give Him credit for the good things around us.

Maybe the world would go a lot better if we observed what the Bible teaches. No drinking, gambling, rape, porn etc. that would be a better place to live in.

Perhaps we are reaping what we are sowing - we expect God to be at our beck and call rather than obedience.

Great article Spencer

Sadly I think you have a magical God that has not adapted to the discoveries of science. Thomas Aquinas said words to the effect that a faulty understanding of nature will lead to a faulty understanding of God.

Science teaches us that there was no "primal pair" or Adam and Eve. Let's not be scared of that FACT and instead look to what it is teaching us. Namely that Genesis is a poem with a deep truth and meaning.

The cross teaches us that it people who killed Jesus not God. The cross shows us what humans do (sin). The cross and resurrection shows us what God does. ... resurrection, new life, new creativity, new relationships not limited by the past (forgiveness).

The only way humans can grow their agency, develop their real humanity, is to have freedom which permits and allows real love.

CS Lewis said that pain is God's alarm clock to wake up a sleeping world. So let's dump the magical thinking and develop a faith appropriate for 2020. Let's embrace truth and science because that reveals God. let us embrace liminal space and the metaphorical space of the "Garden of Gethsemane" in our own lives and find living God and resurrection, new hope and new possibilities for now and the future.

pax

God is not a Chinaman.

Probably because he/she/it is a figment of your very vivid imagination.

Who says he/she does, Spencer? You? Are you saying your Dogma is some sort of a very old book quoting mostly myth and legend, is evidence or that the allegorical sections of it have any literal currency?

A good God created planet earth with an atmosphere with double, the percentage of oxygen as present! And where not even HIV could have survived this natural disinfectant. And a crystal clear atmosphere also allowed equally disinfecting UV to keep it more hygienic.

Then there was the natural food chain that was available replete with natural medicinal herbs, fruit, nuts and vegetables!

Then gave man dominion and free will to (deleted expletive) it up! And there we and or our control-freak leaders have succeeded spectacularly!

Assisted by political endorsement and political evocation from the bully boy pulpit! Vote for anti- Christian conservatives for they have promised financial support? Etc-etc. Read the historically accurate, Pillars of the earth.

Then say it isn't so or that you yourself Spencer do not resemble in word or deed at least one of the principal characters?

Dogma is not nor ever was L.A.W!

And no self-appointed purveyor of it, has any moral authority over anyone, save the highly judgemental hypocrite staring back from the mirror? If the cap fits?

Suggest you finally desist from using the pulpit as a platform to divide us along cultural lines and use it to evocate goodwill to all men and inasmuch as you are able, lead by example as the non-judgemental good samaritan.

And while you are at it, stop with the bearing of false witness as you and your kind ignore validated science. Which by the way, is also a gift from the maker along with an investigative inquisitive open mind! At least that was the intention before the religious control freaks, decided otherwise, via absolutistic, flat-earther dogma.

Do not point to the sty in my eye while ignoring the plank in yours! Use you remaining time to advocate for unity and a change of direction to inclusive sharing society, rather than a dividing, finger or bone pointing one.
Alan B.

DL,

Thank you for your encouragement. I'm grateful to OLO for publishing my Christian assessments of various issues. When this happens, the anti-God folks come out of their rabbit holes with all kinds of logical fallacies that don't address the issues I raised in the article.

You are correct in your observation that the media blame God for the suffering OR Mother Nature. You and I would not be interacting on OLO without the God-given breath we breathe and the ability to use our fingers to type - one finger or touch type

I don't have all the answers regarding why God allows evil and suffering to continue. In the complete knowledge of God He has reasons that are beyond my full understanding. I seek through a glass darkly.

In the article, I didn't tease out some of the principles I've gained from the Book of Job. Here's one of them:

Job 1:8-12 (ERV) gives a powerful message that provides the meaning of suffering for Job: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1%3A8-12&version=ERV.

God used Satan to test a good man to determine if Job would continue to serve the Lord while experiencing horrific suffering. Will we go on living the Christian life in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis? Suffering is meant to test the tenacity of our faith in the Lord. For unbelievers, God can use suffering as a ‘rattling of the cage’ to get them to consider God’s call. It also confirms that in God’s world, bad things happen to good and godly people.

There are 25 'why?' questions in the Book of Job. Job 1:21 (ERV) gives more insight into why God allowed Job to suffer such great loss, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1%3A21&version=ERV

Thank you for joining OLO as a light.

Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York, blames the Jews, warning them that he has instructed the NYPD to "proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period".

On the other hand, he advises the blameless Muslims that, if they need halal food for their celebrations, that they are available across 400+ sites, and hundreds and thousands more sites frequented by Muslims.

What a charming, even-handed fellow. No wonder parading NYPD police officers turned their backs on him recently.

good article Spencer. God's mercy is shown everyday as he gives people opportunities to repent and turn to Him despite man's great wickedness. This generation is certainly among the worse with their false religion (gw), massive amount of unborn slaughters and immorality. Its amazing how merciful and long suffering God is.

The Holy One,

In your response you dumped your holey presuppositions on us. Your tacitly assumed premises include:

+ YOU DID NOT DEAL WITH THE CONTENT OF MY ARTICLE BUT GAVE A RED HERRING FALLACY OF DEALING WITH WHAT YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT - YOUR ANTI-GOD PHILOSOPHY.

+ He is the magical God. You provided not a shred of evidence.

+ 'God that has not adapted to the discoveries of science'. So, science is your measuring stick of what is right. That's scientism, which is 'an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)' (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2020. s.v. scientism).

+ 'Science teaches' no Adam & Eve and this is FACT. Which science comes to that conclusion?

+ 'Genesis is a poem with a deep truth and meaning'. That's an imposition of your worldview on Genesis, without an exegesis of the text.

+ 'The cross and resurrection shows (sic) us what God does. ... resurrection, new life, new creativity, new relationships not limited by the past (forgiveness)'. That's nothing but postmodern deconstruction of the New Testament text.

+ 'let's dump the magical thinking and develop a faith appropriate for 2020'. That's your imposition of your worldview on an issue.

+ 'Let's embrace truth and science because that reveals God'. The aletheia (truth according to the Bible) means that which conforms with reality. I'll accept that definition any day of the week but you don't seem to be affirming that. As for science revealing God, which God are you talking about.

Alan B,

It's time for you to deal with the content of my article and not promote your anti-God presuppositions.

Thank you for your article Spencer.

'The stupidity of human beings'

I'll start here.
Have you looked in the mirror lately, maybe you're long overdue for a reality check.

You state that "They ate from that tree and death and sin entered the human race with disease like we are experiencing. There was increased pain in childbirth, cursing of the ground with thorns and thistles.

What were the consequences of sin-disobedience entering the human race?"

Based on what you're stated above from your infinite wisdom the consequences of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit were that women developed tighter vaginas (thus resulting in more painful childbirth) and that weeds began to grow all across the planet when they had not existed prior.

"I disagree about the origin. The great harm to creation brought on by Adam and Eve's sin resulted in the curse of disease for plant and human life."

So Adam and Eve created COVID-19?

"Until then, creation is subject to God's curse (including COVID-19, SARS, Ebola, rabies, the plague, and Black Death)."

Or did God create COVID-19? I'm confused?

Q: Why is there no mention of USAID funded PREDICT Program where they collaborated with China to collect the bat samples, isolate the viruses and transfect them to intermediate animals and then humans?

Read These:
http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698
http://vermontbiz.com/news/2020/february/13/leahy-coronavirus-and-trumps-budget

"In China, the PREDICT program sampled more than 10,000 bats and identified more than 500 new coronaviruses, including a strain that is a 96 percent match to the 2019 novel coronavirus strain."

I think you focus too much on God's will and not enough on Man's will, but you stuff this part up regularly.

In truth it was religious who were complicit in the spread of this virus, plenty of Christians claimed God would protect them from Coronavirus indeed an entire church was at the epicentre of the virus in South Korea, also many Hasidic Jews were disregarding social distancing especially during funerals, and Muslims were reminded of social distancing even by the NSW Premier prior to Ramadan.

Your religious beliefs are twisted beliefs that put other innocent people at risk of harm.

Dear Ozpen,

Well I'm torn.

I love me a good bible discussion but am seriously put off by the copious blaspheming you are employing to make your argument, and you have already started to trot out your logical fallacies shtick which you have repeatedly demonstrated you know very little about how to use correctly.

But hey, I'm at a bit of a loose end at the moment so let's have at it. I will put on my cultural Christian hat to play.

Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge allowed them to assess good and evil. In doing so it gave them the ability to assess the acts of God, to discern whether they were evil and to challenge God.

What God did to Job was evil and Job challenged him on it.

What he did to Sodom and Gomorrah was too and the flood was an evil act.

If, as you are contending, that God has sent this virus (“not as confident as he about God's justice allowing wickedness to continue worldwide without consequences”), then God is yet again committing an evil act.

If this is the case then God has shown contrition in the past. My hope is that he will again.

Just as an aside it is a little disconcerting to have such a fundamentalist piece on OLO. It will take a little getting use to. But we do indeed live in changing times.

Are you aware that GOD is actually DOG spelled backwards?

As a non-believer, I can't say I've noticed any slagging off of any gods over the Corona virus. Or the reverse.

Probably it's time to admit that all gods are irrelevant in the modern world, and in particular, the notion of blaming any one particular god or fairy or boogy-man for this virus smacks of belief in a thing who/which is willing to kill perhaps half a million human beings over some obscure point which nobody is really aware of yet. Perhaps he/she/it will give someone a sign :)

Or maybe, like in the Book of Job, god has made another bet with Satan ? Strange story, which does not show any god in a good light, merely as a bully and braggart who throws his weight around when he is challenged. And, come to think of it, loses his bet with Satan. Well worth reading, believer or not.

Joe

Reality is a more-than-wonderful Mystery!

The humanly created world is an intrinsically unfathomable beginningless and endless pattern patterning in which everyone and everything is instantaneously interconnected. In which we are unconsciously entangled.

Adam and Eve in the Garden of Indestructible Light
http://www.beezone.com/adidajesus/adamnervoussystemeveflesh.html

Section 4 of this essay refers to Adam & Eve too. It also describes the limits and purposes of all our presumed knowledge.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/there_is_a_way.html

dear oh dear their are some puny fist shakers around olo. We know if you were 'God ' all would be wonderful. Coming from a generation of people who claim we came from slime, invent the gw religion to scare kids and thieve money and somehow claim some sort of morality when in fact that deny the source of any decent morality. Well I suppose you are only left to shake your puny fist at your Maker when you have such pathetic beliefs when it comes to origins, biology and every other fact that stares you in the face.

What is really so different about the Coronavirus?

Its quite amazing. Some books have already been published by "learned" Christian "theologians" attempting to explain how Christians should or can respond to the Coronavirus. Hundreds of "learned" articles/essays have been written too, and countless sermons preached.

It is as if these talking heads do not understand that Death Rules To Here. Or that every mortal entity disintegrates and dies and is therefore effectively eaten by Nature.

Everybody dies sooner or later. At least 200,000 human beings die every day, and 300 children die of malnutrition and/or starvation every hour. Countless billions of non-human entities die or are killed/eaten every minute.

Some more Wisdom on how to live life with Real Intelligence.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/this_liberating_impulse/index.html

Daffy Duck,

<<The humanly created world is an intrinsically unfathomable beginningless and endless pattern patterning in which everyone and everything is instantaneously interconnected. In which we are unconsciously entangled.>>

Instead of giving us your philosophical rave, why don't you address the content of my article?

One entirely innocent child every four minutes? D.D. And are these innocent kids reaping something they've sown?

Well, hard to see that in this lifetime! But perhaps the one before or the one before that? Verily, verily I say unto you, to reach unto the kingdom of heaven, ye must be born again!

This is the only thing that makes perfect sense out of the deaths of millions of seemingly innocent kids and babies!

Just as a stone thrown into a pond, the ripples go on until they reach the shore! Then by implication, any act completed in the physical element must see any reward or punishment completed here also! If not in his life then the next?

And so, the sins (mistakes) of the fathers, shall be visited on the children! as we reincarnate, time after time, life after life? And inherit the very world and world order we helped create! Sow as you sow,o also shall you reap!

Or put another way but means the same, Karma! Absolute, so as you sow, so also shall you reap! Divine justice! Time to do it very different and take responsibility for what you do or allow, given you are coming back to wear all of it!

God may well have created this pandora, but we let it out of its box through our many, greed is good, paradigms.

And the responsibility of all who lead, be it in our parliaments or from the control freak's pulpit!
Alan B.

Dear Ozpen,

You said of Daffy Duck's whimsical offering;

“Instead of giving us your philosophical rave, why don't you address the content of my article?”

Mate that could not be in any way described as a rave. Yours was most certainly a religious rave/rant. Projection at its finest.

Your article was a mish mash of illogical meanderings, pruning kind of relevant snippets from a book which deserves better, without any grounding in fact. You have spruiked your take on life, the universe and everything. What harm is it for someone else to do the same?

Now I put ot you that God does evil. Do you have a response?

Some form of religion has existed in every society
that we know of. Religious beliefs and practices
are so ancient that they can be traced into
prehistory, perhaps as far back hundred of thousands
years ago. Even the primitive Neanderthal people of
that time, it seems, has some concept of a
supernatural realm that lay beyond everyday reality.

Among the fossilized remains of these cave dwellers,
anthropologists have found evidence of funeral
ceremonies in the form of flowers and artifacts that
were buried with the dead, presumably to accompany them on
the journey to an afterlife.

Although religion is a universal social institution, it
takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods,
ancestors, or totems, they may practice solitary
meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer.

The are a great variety of religious behavior. What most
of us are familiar with is that there exists one supreme
being or God. That God created the universe and all life
and takes a continuing interest in the creation. That there
is a life hereafter and that our moral behaviour in this
life influences our fate in the next.

Obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of
Western tradition alone.

Few citizens of modern societies would
utterly deny the possibility of some higher power in the
universe, some supernatural transcendental realm that
lies beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience and in
this fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay.

However, asking the question as to why the good God
allows COVID-19?

Is like asking- why is there evil in the world?

What we do in this world is our choice. We have the power
to choose our actions, how we behave, what kind of world
we want to live in, and the kind of societies and
civilisations we create or destroy.

You contrarians need to have a look at Spencer Gear's qualifications and experience. With the exception of runner, you are just a bunch of Christophobes with nothing worth saying on the subject.

Why does the good God allow COVID-19?
Then ask why He allowed you to come out of the womb to begin with, into this cold, painful, hostile world!

Take responsibility, fellows: you knew what this world is like, you knew how it operates, you knew that life here would not be a picnic, yet you chose to come here anyway - so please play by the rules, own it up, why seek the pleasures but shun the pains? The nature of this world is that they come hand-in-hand!

If you truly did not like this world, then you didn't have to come, so please don't blame it on God who allowed you to experience what you wanted and needed. Even now, if you truly do not like it here then you may simply leave, just drop your body, forget about it, stop identifying with it and allow it to fall wherever and however it will - but would you?

To OzSpen

I agree that a lot of bad things in the world exist as a Testiment that the world is broken in many parts. This is both a condition placed on us from Adam and Eve's fall, as well as an ongoing result of our actions as a world. I also agree that things of this nature are tools to shake us up and bring us back in line with God. I've heard a simular view on the Great Depression that made people on equal footing instead of the huge gape between the rich and the poor.

However I'm a bit leery of the stance that Covid is an act of judgement from God. It's not that it couldn't be, because it very well could be. But I'm leery because I've heard a few times in my life someone using a disaster after it occures to proclaim their version of what's wrong with the world. The same type of argument that says this is Mother Nature taking vengeance, has been used in at least one church have members go to funerals and harass those in sorrow. (WestBoro baptist church in the US, a few years ago). The reasoning that this clamity is an act of judgement because of x,y,and z is a type of reasoning I hold with caution to be leery and skeptical towards.

(continued)

(Continued)

I also try to consider if these kinds of after the event reasoning could hold merit. But the problem is that this leads to a kind of blaming and looking for an excuse for why something happened. Even when it was not something you caused or influenced. Things like getting sick, or losing your job is in some way because you deserve it for not being good enough, not being generous enough, or not being around family more ... The number of reasons out there and the amount of standards to place on our shoulders is too carried and diverse to know which ones could have been any of those reasons, if any of them were one of the reasons at all. The reasons behind a disaster that might have merit have to be considered very carefully.

Either way I do think this is an opportunity to shake the world a bit so that we can look to God more. Hopefully something lasting afterwords will take root that leads more people to God, or at least leads to more compassion to everyone in general.

Dear NNS,

Oh you really are talking rubbish this time. Of course this was a God passing judgement, just look at the signs.

On of the most senior leaders in the Catholic Church escapes the judgement of man's law. This enabler and in my opinion likely perpetrator is probably responsible for so much harm done to children in Australia yet even though Jesus spoke of the dire consequences for those who harm a hair on their heads he has walked free.

Don't believe me? Just look at the countries most impacted by this plague. Italy, the seat of the church responsible, Spain, a highly Catholic nation whose persecutions were exceptional, and of course the USA, the most deeply Christian fundamentalist nation on earth whose abuse levels by the Catholic priesthood were on par with those in Australia.

However this country has been spared. Why I'm not sure. Was it because of our efforts in bringing Pell to justice? Or was it because of our earnest attempt to right some of the grievous wrongs through a Royal Commission?

Who truly knows the mind of God but to even contemplate that he would be more vengeful on those nations who have allowed loving couples of the same sex to be married rather than nations who have let deep harm come to their children without justice being properly dispensed is doing a just God a grave disservice.

ttbn,

<<You contrarians need to have a look at Spencer Gear's qualifications and experience. With the exception of runner, you are just a bunch of Christophobes with nothing worth saying on the subject.>>

Thank you for your encouraging assessment of this thread and my qualifications. However, the issues need to be discussed rationally instead of commenters making accusations against Christ and giving anti-God assertions.

Whenever I write articles for ONO, many posters engage in the use of logical fallacies rather than addressing the content of the article. Perhaps you could help me to identify some of these fallacies, explaining them in simple language. There is a very extensive list of fallacies at Logically Fallacious, http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/. This is the most extensive list I've encountered on the www.

A smaller list is at: The Nizkor Project, http://www.nizkor.com/features/fallacies/.

Thank you for standing against the anti-God/Christ promoters.

May God bless you.

Is God really responsible for our actions and choices?

It would seem that all we can blame God for is Acts of God.
Man needs to be blamed for his own actions - such as
drinking alcohol, committing adultery, spreading disease,
and so on.

We are responsible for our own actions and choices.
Just like Adam and Eve were.

"Your own ways and your actions will be brought upon you.
How bitter is your disaster for it reaches clear to your
heart." Jeremiah 4:18

Take care.
Stay safe.

Dear Foxy,

Unfortunately the Bible does contain numerous instances of God inflicting plagues and other misery for perceived transgression against him. It is from this that Ozpen derives his appeal to a higher authority.

Dear Ozpen,

Did you really write this; “ Crossan’s postmodern, reconstructive, interactive hermeneutic was shipwrecked on the ‘rocks’ of contradiction, inconsistency and a self-defeating methodology.”

And this?

“Crossan imposed his own understanding of the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection through his use of free play, relativistic, multivalent, postmodern, nonsupernatural stratagem on the text.”

And you try to bang on about logical fallacies?

How dare someone attempt to use a 'nonsupernatural statagem' on anything, that would be so illogical.

Lol.

Question though. Did you agree with your advisor Ernest that “This world, for Jesus, was the kingdom of God”?

And I did like his take that Jesus was a 'social prophet' one who was reacting against the deep social injustices of the time.

Dear Steele,

Jonathan Merritt writes in The Atlantic, April 24, 2020,
"Some of the most visible Christians in America are
failing the coronavirus test in place of love, they're
offering stark self-righteous judgement."

It's an article right on the subject of this discussion and
in my opinion - well worth a read:

http://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/christian-cruelty-face-covid-19/610477/

He sums up:

"To me Christianity is kindness, compassion, and
supernatural love. It's not fighting back, attacking
enemies, settling scores, or leveraging other people's
pain for your own advancement."

"Some of the most visible Christians in America, it seems,
need to go back to Sunday School and discover the
loving roots at the core of this great religion's
message."

Not only in America - but many self-proclaimed Christians
need to take stock of the messages they are sending out.

SteeleRedux,

<<On of the most senior leaders in the Catholic Church escapes the judgement of man's law. This enabler and in my opinion likely perpetrator is probably responsible for so much harm done to children in Australia yet even though Jesus spoke of the dire consequences for those who harm a hair on their heads he has walked free.>>

I am not a Roman Catholic, so I'm not defending the RC church on the release of Cardinal George Pell from prison. The FACTS are that he was found not guilty in Australia's High Court by a unanimous decision of the judges, 7-0,
http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/04/06/australias-high-court-overturns-guilty-verdict-against-cardinal-george

You have given him your subjective assessment of being a 'likely perpetrator' when the judicial authorities found him NOT GUILTY.

Do you have a law degree that equips you to make decisions contrary to the forensic evidence in this case?

Dear Ozpen,

You said; “Do you have a law degree that equips you to make decisions contrary to the forensic evidence in this case?”

No, there was nothing contrary to the forensic evidence of the case as there was no forensic evidence to be contrary of.

The High Court expressly acknowledged that, and I quote from their judgement, “that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt."

They are undoubtedly extremely well versed in the law so I hardly need a law degree to concur with their position.

Now most of the Christian faith is predicated on the testimony of others. Those testimonies have to be deemed credible by believers for them to accept them.

I have found A's evidence to be deemed credible by enough people, including the 12 jurors and 7 High Court judges, for me to form a similar opinion.

However I also accept that the nature of these offences make it difficult for a burden of proof to ne met and it was no judged to have done so in this case.

Without any forensic evidence of Christ's resurrection you accept it based upon the testimonies of others. Why is your take any more legitimate than mine?

Finally to get back to your article, is God capable of doing evil?

SteeleRedux,

<<Without any forensic evidence of Christ's resurrection you accept it based upon the testimonies of others. Why is your take any more legitimate than mine?>>

Jesus' resurrection is based on historical science that leads to a reliable New Testament document. Also, when I invited Jesus Christ into my life, he came to live in me. The Apostle John explained that ‘the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world' (1 John 4:4).

<<Finally to get back to your article, is God capable of doing evil?>>

The Apostle John again: 'We heard the true teaching from God. Now we tell it to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness' (1 John 1:5). God is incapable of doing moral evil because He is 100% goodness.

Sometimes when discussing this topic, people have raised the King James Version of Isaiah 45:7 which states God does ‘create evil’. This is an unfortunate translation of the Hebrew ra, which should be translated ‘create calamity'.

Thus, God is properly said to be the author of 'evil' in this sense of calamity, but not in the moral sense.

God has created calamity in the past, e.g. Noah's flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God does it through catastrophes like floods, droughts, tsunamis, cyclones, tornadoes, September 11, etc. But why?

C S Lewis wrote in 'The Problem of Pain': Pain is “God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (The Problem of Pain). 'We must have ears to hear and the want to trust. If we don’t, we won’t work through pain and see his plan through it....

“God has not been trying an experiment on my faith or love in order to find out their quality. He knew it already. It was I who didn’t. In this trial He makes us occupy the dock, the witness box, and the bench all at once. He always knew that my temple was a house of cards. His only way of making me realize the fact was to knock it down', http://www.cslewis.com/pain-and-grief/

Hey OzSpen,

"However, the issues need to be discussed rationally instead of commenters making accusations against Christ and giving anti-God assertions."

Entertaining the idea that God or Adam / Eve are responsible for the outbreak of COVID-19 is not rational.
Your logic was tainted before you began, and all you've done is try to prop up the illogical thinking.

Man's will, not God's will.

"The Coronavirus is believed to have originated at a wildlife market in China's Wuhan city' and 'it is suspected that the virus crossed to humans from the pangolin'."

I told you all two months ago, anyone who believes the virus came from Wuhan fish market is an idiot, and it may not have even come from China.

"Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, SARS-CoV-2, and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens' (ABC News, Brisbane, Qld, 18 April 2020). Would this virus have originated without contact through 'wet markets'?"

That's only half the bloody story, yes it came from bats;
I showed you the research in my last comment.
- But after that it was engineered in a lab, and you're cherry picking the facts.
Do you think the US, Chinese and other countries are going to come clean about their bioweapons programs and deliberately engineering viruses and other biological agents?

'You and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was discovered…. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty'.

No don't worry about others using fear and death as a weapons to push forward the globalist agendas.
When COVID-19 is gone, well see which agendas push forward.
http://theconversation.com/what-is-sentinel-surveillance-and-how-might-it-help-in-the-fight-against-coronavirus-136845

WUHAN COVID-19 SYNTHETIC ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION

"The main result of this updated release is the formal proof that 2019-nCoV coronavirus is partially a SYNTHETIC genome. We proof the CONCENTRATION in a small région of wuhan New genome (300bp) of 3 different régions from HIV1 ENVELOPPE gene and 3 others from HIV2 and SIV (ENV and POL RT). All this is remarkable and bears the mark of a desire for organization of a human nature: LOGIC, SYMETRIES. In this article, we demonstrate also that there is a kind of global human hosts adaptation strategy of SARS viruses as well as a strategy of global evolution of the genomes of the different strains of SARS which have emerged, mainly in China, between years 2003 first SARS genomes and the last 2019 COVID-19 Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus isolate Wuhan-Hu-1, complete genome. This global strategy, this temporal link, is materialized in our demonstration by highlighting stationary numerical waves controlling the entire sequence of their genomes. Curiously, these digital waves characterizing the 9 SARS genomes studied here are characteristic whole numbers: the "Fibonacci numbers", omnipresent in the forms of Nature, and which our research for several decades has shown strong links with the proportions of nucleotides in DNA. Here we demonstrate that the complexity and fractal multiplicity of these Fibonacci numerical waves increases over the years of the emergence of new SARS strains. We suggest that this increase in the overall organization of the SARS genomes over the years reflects a better adaptation of SARS genomes to the human host. The question of a link with pathogenicity remains open. However, we believe that this overall strategy for the evolution of the SARS genomes ensures greater unity, consistency and integrity of the genome. Finally, we ask ourselves the question of a possible artificial origin of this genome, in particular because of the presence of fragments of HIV1, HIV2 and SIV retroviruses."

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/340100582_WUHAN_COVID-19_SYNTHETIC_ORIGINS_AND_EVOLUTION

- Better read that last bit right!

And as a side note:
Isn't the fibonacci sequence that which you claim to be Gods signature?

After Eve ate the forbidden fruit God punished her with a tighter vagina and plagued the world with weeds that had not existed prior.

You're really gonna have to do better than that you simple-minded fool.

- Man's will, NOT God's will -

Stop attributing to God (if he even exists) that which is attributable to MANS FREE WILL.

You've got a perfectly good candidate to blame in humans, but you WANT IT to be evidence of the Lord at work.... decimating the population.

BTW is your God benevolent or malevolent?

Spencer I don't enjoy having to always correct you, but you always get everything wrong.

ttbn's right about his observation regarding the forum that new information rarely changes peoples entrenched beliefs anyway.
- So I don't know why I even bother...

Armchair Critic,

<<I told you all two months ago, anyone who believes the virus came from Wuhan fish market is an idiot, and it may not have even come from China.>>

When will you quit using this Ad Hominem logical fallacy. You use erroneous reasoning in this statement and we can't have a rational discussion when you do this.

Other scientists studying COVID-19 reach a different conclusion to yours:

Two Chinese scientists from a Wuhan lab found to have studied bats in Australia
Apr 27, 2020

Sky News Australia

"Global intelligence agencies looking into the origins of COVID-19 have found two Chinese scientists studied live bats in Australia as part of a joint research between the Chinese communist government and the Australian government.

"In an exclusive the Daily Telegraph is reporting the “Five Eyes intelligence agencies of Australia, Canada, NZ, UK, and US are understood to be looking closely at the work of a senior Scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Peng Zhou, and fellow scientist Shi Zhengli”.

"Sky News host and the Daily Telegraph’s Sharri Markson wrote the intelligence agencies have been examining “whether COVID-19 originated from a wet market or whether the naturally-occurring virus may have been inadvertently released”.

"Sky News contributor Scott Emerson said these new revelations will just 'raise more concerns about what are the origins of COVID-19'", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TYqGtrewoA

Dear Ozpen,

You proselytise; “Jesus' resurrection is based on historical science that leads to a reliable New Testament document.”

Well no it isn't and no it doesn't.

Mark is recognised as the original Gospel from which both Matthew and Luke derive much of their text. John was written after the destruction of the temple and the chaotic times which followed.

In the early manuscripts of Mark the only purported witness to the resurrection was this fellow;

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Sure later versions and gospels fleshed out a resurrection narrative but it is hardly historical science by anyone's definition. To argue otherwise would be utterly illogical.

So to God and evil.

Jonah 3:10  And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Job 42:11 ... and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

32:14 Exodus And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough.

So there are many places in the Bible describing certain actions of God evil. By sugar coating them you strip them of their power and the narrative arc of humans becoming more God like while God gains a sense of humanity is lost.

You say “Thus, God is properly said to be the author of 'evil' in this sense of calamity, but not in the moral sense.“
which is a position not supported by the text. In Genesis 18 where the Lord has decided to obliterate Sodom and Gomorrah he seeks to hide his intentions from Abraham.

Genesis 18:16  And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. 17 And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;

He was wary of a moral judgement from Abraham who then tried to bargain with the Lord to prevent the evil he was about to do.

Job is another instance where God is held to account for his evil actions, where the morals of Job shame him and cause him to reflect on what he has done.

Please remember sinning against God is not the same as acting immorally.

Hey Spencer,

"When will you quit using this Ad Hominem logical fallacy."

Well I don't exactly know what your on about 'logical fallacy', and I don't even care.
Speak english.
As for 'Ad Hominen' I will tell you you're idiots if you act that way.
It's a non-violent form of correction, and if more people told idiots that they are idiots the world would be a much better place.
- But what I do know is my argument made perfect sense, and maybe you've got screws loose.

'Two Chinese scientists from a Wuhan lab found to have studied bats in Australia'
- So what?

In your article you said it was 'Lee-Harvey Fishmonger'.
Now in your last comment and linked article you're saying IT MIGHT'VE been 'Lee-Harvey Chinese-Lab-Assistant'.

QUOTE "Sky News host and the Daily Telegraph’s Sharri Markson wrote the intelligence agencies have been examining “whether COVID-19 originated from a wet market or whether the naturally-occurring virus may have been inadvertently released”.

That's what you quoted.

When the old house of cards falls down you build a new house of cards?
You're just parroting THEIR narrative.

If you look at what the genomes of the virus itself say, then you'll understand the only way it can get the spike proteins of HIV was if it was engineered as a bioweapon.

So what the virus came from bats?
That's what I said months ago.

But it was mixed with other viruses with a gene-splicer.
That's the part you're not getting.

The next part you need to get to is that:

IF - It came from a lab
THEN - It could've come from ANY lab

The mainstream media isn't there for your benefit.
It's there for others benefit and to keep you clueless.
You're two months behind in the news.

Armchair Critic,

<<As for 'Ad Hominen' I will tell you you're idiots if you act that way. It's a non-violent form of correction, and if more people told idiots that they are idiots the world would be a much better place.>>

There you go with another Ad Hominem (Abusive) Fallacy when you call me an 'idiot'. When you use this fallacy, you attack me rather than deal with the argument presented in my article. Yours is a personal attack that is 'completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making', http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusive.

Ad Hominem literally means 'against man'. In calling me an 'idiot' you have bypassed the content of my article and my Comments. Why? So you can focus on yourself and your views.

When you use a fallacy, it's impossible to have a logical dialogue and that's where you've come to now with your approach - a dead end.

Oz

I read your article and for my own personal reasons have concluded it’s a load of rubbish. I won’t qualify my conclusions because like Armchair Critic you will revert to your ad hominem attack stance.

I am still amazed someone can gain a PhD based on a book with no basis on fact, another reason university courses should be reduced back to rational subjects like engineering, medicine and biology etc.

OLO should ban the rubbish you write, it embarrassing
Galen

.

Dear Spencer,

.

You wrote in your article (quoting – in part – Luke 18:19 of the New Testament) :

« Jesus said 'no one is good but God alone'. »
.

In fact, the full quotation of Luke 18:19 is :

« Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. »
.

To put it in context, we have to read the preceding sentence (Luke 18:18) as well :

« [18] A certain ruler asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ [19] Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. »
.

Jesus denies that he is “good”. Yet his mother claimed, he was the son of “God”, of virgin birth, and brought him up in that belief.

It’s an odd contradiction, isn’t it ? If he considered he was not “good” what did he think he was – a sinner (despite his baptism) ?

If so, what sins did Jesus, the “son of God”, commit ?

It raises the question as to whether Jesus really did believe he was the “son of God” all his life, or if, at some point of time, he realised that he was not. Could it be that – perhaps to protect his mother – he simply continued to play-out the role she had bestowed on him at birth and, for some reason, dearly wanted everyone to believe.

Whichever way you look at it, it's always difficult to explain how a baby can be born without a father, isn’t it ?

What’s your explanation, Spencer ?

.

Banjo P,

<<Whichever way you look at it, it's always difficult to explain how a baby can be born without a father, isn’t it ? What’s your explanation, Spencer ?
>>

What's my explanation to you, a God-denier and Christophobic?

You are not yet ready to consider matters concerning the Kingdom of God.

Logic and religion don't seem to mix.
Does it follow that the religious then, are not capable of logic?

It's either that; or

I don't like to disparage you this way Spencer, but I have some concerns that your mind is starting to go.

You state that I've attacked you rather than dealt with the argument presented in your article.

It seems that your article asked why God sends natural disasters upon us.
You stated "we could be in the midst of a pandemic created by God to shake up our values to get us on track with the Lord of the universe" - and that somehow it's all Adam and Eve's fault;

What the hell is with that type of thinking anyway?
God takes retribution upon us so that we will run and kiss his butt again?
Do you have Stockholm Syndrome or something?
Have you built a bond with your captor?
Is your god malevolent, benevolent or neutral?
Is he good sometimes and bad at other times?

I stated that you're wrong, that there's evidence of man's hand in this virus.

But you will never accept logic because your mind is tainted with religion.

Somehow in your twisted reality, you'd say that if it WAS the Wuhan Scientists you showed in your link, then this is because of Adam and Eve, not because man himself had the freewill to develop the virus.

I don't like to say it, but I think you religious lot completely lose all sense of reality when you read too much from that book.

Spencer,

As a non-believer, with only a vague understanding of what Christians view as the three-way nature of God/Christ/HolySpirit, this puzzles me:

« Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. »

So ..... Jesus and God are, at least in this report, distinct, different beings ?

Or was the writer struggling to resolve the paradox that, while only God can be perfectly good, anybody else (even including Christ) was - by not being God - not quite as good ? i.e. according to this myth, perhaps since Christ had a human mother, he wasn't completely godly, but was part human, and therefore not perfectly good ?

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, simply trying to understand how contradictions and paradoxes are to be resolved.

Joe

Dear Joe,

In her book "Jesus The Man" Prof. Barbara Thiering
presents her landmark research
into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.
She provides a radically different history of the life
of Christ which sweeps away the miraculous and superstitious
elements associated with the origins of Christianity.

The Dead Sea Scrolls give us a new definition of scripture -
that it is written on two levels. In her studies of the
Scrolls over a period of 20 years, Thiering became aware
that this approach could be used in understanding the
New Testament. Through detailed research and a process of
scrupulous comparison she has applied this interpretive
key to the New Testament to reveal that the real history
of Jesus is "... in the place where, ironically, he has
been thought to be least likely to be found - in the
Gospels and Acts of the New Testament."

She claims that the gospels were written deliberately
in a form containing two levels of meaning: the surface
level provides a simplified and often symbolic
description designed to satisfy those who needed the
supernatural as an element of their faith; and the second
level, concealed within, depicts the actual events and their
real significance.

The surface stories and parables of the New Testament
provide one account - yet the real history of the life
of Jesus is to be found beneath.

By presenting his life in its historical context (amidst
the social, political and religious agitations of the time),
Thiering removes elements of Christian mythology to show
that Jesus:

-was born out of wedlock to a betrothed and thus, officially,
"virgin" woman;

-was rejected by his strict Jewish religious sect for his
actions in promoting rights for the poor, the sick, women
and gentiles;

- was crucified for his beliefs but did not die on the
cross...

By stripping away the mystery from events and examining
their significance - we can discover a Jesus who is real,
human, fallible figure. His courage, compassion and wisdom
are of timeless relevance and continue to be the
wellspring of our deepest, most powerful values.

"The virgin birth, the miracles, and the
resurrection can be viewed in an entirely new light...
They never were literal events... nor were they myths,
traditional legends, as scholars have often held.
Something really did happen, and what happened opens
up a whole new understanding of historical Christianity."

From the Introduction to "Jesus The Man".

Foxy,

I would go one step further and suggest that Jesus and the early cult of Christianity has its roots in Greek myth and religion and that the early Christians of the Greek world posited Jesus in the context of pagan Greek religious thought identifying Jesus as a demigod in much the same way that Herackles was defined by their pagan forebears. Which I think would answer LOUDmouth's question.

Mr O,

From biblical times to the terror of the Soviet regime,
to the Nazi Holocaust to the present suffering in
northeast Nigeria, to our local emergency rooms, the
suffering of innocents has often prompted the same
questions - Where is God? Why does the good God allow it?

When it comes to covid-19, and for that matter other suffering,
no one can blame God. It's people who have gotten us
into these messes - and it's people - with God's help -
who can help heal
a world deathly ill. We don't need to look to the Heavens
to find the truth.

In the case of covid-19, the Chinese government identified
the virus as early as November and the major of Wuhan before
he was fired admitted in January that over 5 million people from
Wuhan were allowed to leave the city before travel restrictions
had been enacted.

The government then proceeded to weaponize medical supplies
by importing tens of millions of surgical masks and respirators -
a large portion of the world's supply.

These are the facts.

Great posts and much better understanding of ‘Jesus’ than the OzSpen mythology.

It’s interesting to note the US Defence Intelligence Agency reported to senior US political figures back in August 2019 there appeared to be a flu virus of significant threat of becoming a Pandemic, this information (obviously now being suppressed) was confirmed by Israel last month by one of their senior intelligence officials. Go figure.

Mans hand is everywhere re Covid19, no sign of any god if you ask me.

Foxy,

There is no God, particularly the one defined by Christianity as He who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-caring.

There is Life in its trillions of different forms and the Wuhan bat soup virus that is attacking us is one particular life form that finds us humans to be a convenient host.

We definitely do have a war on our hands: Humans versus Viruses; one form of feeder fighting for survival against an attack by another form of feeder. I think we humans will win this war simply because we have something very special that the Wuhan bat soup virus does not have: Culture.

But let's not diverge. There is something before the Big Bang that science cannot identify but it definitely will not be God because whatever it is that created a universe of things that feed on other things just does not tick all the boxes that define God.

certainly 100% must be a devil when you listen to the atrocious irrational excuses denying our Creator.

runner,

What is it that you find atrocious and irrational?

Labeling people makes you appear irrational.

BTW: For your information -

The ancient Mayan people of Mexico who left
behind monumental structures which have stone
carvings and hieroglyphics recording their history
telling stories of alien arrivals from space
who were worshiped by the Mayans as Gods and the
descendants of these Gods became rulers.

Something that can be compared to biblical times.

In today science fiction films of space travel and
time travel - can easily fit into that genre of
explaining the past.

We live in interesting times.

But nobody is trying to demean your beliefs.
They are just as legitimate as those of other people.

It's a question of faith and what you believe in.

No one is trying to say or imply that -

"My God is better than yours."

It's not a competition.

runner,

You sound like the dejected guy who just learned the truth that there is no God.

Don't worry, if it's any comfort I can tell you when they put you in your grave you will be accompanied by trillions of your life-long companions - those bacteria who have been using you as some sort of taxi cab - who will have a good feast at your expense!

Dear Ozpen,

You blessed someone who used the term Christophobic and said “Thank you for standing against the anti-God/Christ promoters.”

Then you said of Banjo P “What's my explanation to you, a God-denier and Christophobic?”

This is the very definition of the use of ad hominen attack, of “Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself”.

There is no evidence either he or any of us hate Christ or are afraid of him, many like myself would think he was a pretty decent bloke all in all.

I said this in my first post to you;

“I love me a good bible discussion but am seriously put off by the copious blaspheming you are employing to make your argument, and you have already started to trot out your logical fallacies shtick which you have repeatedly demonstrated you know very little about how to use correctly.”

You have amply proven my point.

This is what Jesus said of the hypocrites;

Matthew 23 “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

runner,

What is it that you find atrocious and irrational?

something from nothing fantasy
creation without Creator
laws without a Lawmaker
moral laws without a moral Lawgiver
evolution fantasy
denial of man's corrupt nature (on display olo every day)
all belief systems equal
basic biology
design requiring a Designer
denial of truth while substituting lies
denial of absolute truth making all discussion invalid

runner,

Religion - in your case Christianity - is part of your world view.

In your case you put more emphasis on religion to explain your world than you would on scientific and commonness explanations.

The interesting question is why you seek to explain phenomena in terms of religion rather than other forms of knowledge.

Answer: You believe in the supernatural.

'In your case you put more emphasis on religion to explain your world than you would on scientific and commonness explanations.'

pretty dishonest Mr Opinion. My emphasis is on truth that has been backed by science not like the false corrupted gw models and more recently the corrupted models used to control people due to coronavirus. Trying to pretend that the something from nothing explanation for beginnings in scientific is lying garbage. People who walk around looking at creation need to shut their eyes daily not to see design. They are either deluded or dishonest.

loudmouth2,

<<As a non-believer, with only a vague understanding of what Christians view as the three-way nature of God/Christ/HolySpirit, this puzzles me....

So ..... Jesus and God are, at least in this report, distinct, different beings ?

Or was the writer struggling to resolve the paradox that, while only God can be perfectly good, anybody else (even including Christ) was - by not being God - not quite as good ?>>

You have cited a passage such as Luke 18:19 (NIV), "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone", http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk+18%3A19&version=NIVUK
This is from the parable of the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-30).

The Ruler addressed Jesus, 'Good Teacher' (v. 18) with the question: 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' Thoughtful people ask this question of God even today.

What is the ultimate meaning of Jesus' answer: 'Why do you call me good?... No one is good--except God alone'. My understanding is that Jesus subtly urges the ruler to see that if Jesus is good and only God is good, then Jesus is God. Here Jesus establishes the standard of goodness is higher than that of the young ruler. God is the only who who is truly good.

This verse teaches part of a knowledge of the Godhead - the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Spirit of God. All three are persons who function in the Godhead.

Dear Ozpen,

Come on mate, he was quite clear when he said; "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" that he didn't have a sense of himself as God.

Further it strips the crucifixion narrative of much of its power to assume that he was.

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

We would go from "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." to 'For God so loved the world, as to give of himself that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.'

No, Jesus is not God and he would likely have considered such notions as blasphemous.

Armchair Critic,

<<Spencer I don't enjoy having to always correct you, but you always get everything wrong'.

So AC is the standard of what is right and wrong. That's an arrogant view of your own abilities.

Proverbs 12:15 sums up your approach to my posts: 'Fools think their own way is right, but the wise listen to others'.

Foxy,

<<She [the late Prof Barbara Thiering] provides a radically different history of the life of Christ which sweeps away the miraculous and superstitious elements associated with the origins of Christianity.>>

You're a great fan of the late Aussie theologian, Barbara Thiering, and her Pesher Method of interpretation, that leads to some very unorthodox views of the Bible.

All was not well with Barbara. This reviewer stated:

"Dr Thiering has this one bad. To claim, as she did, that much of Christianity is false and misguided (including belief in the resurrection and divinity of Christ) and yet still call herself a ‘Christian’, shows the disease in an advanced stage. No longer able (or willing) to believe in a divine, resurrected Jesus, she is obliged to come up with an alternative explanation", http://thebriefing.com.au/1990/05/the-riddle-of-barbara-thiering/

.

Dear Runner,

.

You posted the following list of “atrocious and irrational” items :

1. something from nothing fantasy
2. creation without Creator
3. laws without a Lawmaker
4. moral laws without a moral Lawgiver
5. evolution fantasy
6. denial of man's corrupt nature (on display olo every day)
7. all belief systems equal
8. basic biology
9. design requiring a Designer
10. denial of truth while substituting lies
11. denial of absolute truth making all discussion invalid

That reminds me of the song Alfred Williams wrote in 1907 :

« A man without a woman is like a ship without a sail,
a boat without a rudder or a fish without a tail,
a man without a woman is like a wreck upon the sand,
there's only one thing worse in the universe
and that's a woman without a man. »

In philosophical terms, Runner, you are delving into the metaphysical interpretations on the nature of reality and their potential role in the origin and structure of the universe.

Which came first, one may ask, the chicken or the egg ?

1. How can there “be” such a thing as “nothing” ? If there is nothing, then it does not exist. And if it does not exist, it cannot pre-exist anything. “Something” must have come first, and “nothing” (non-existence) must have followed afterwards – as a result of the coming into existence of “something”.

"Nothing" is simply the limit of “something” – just as death is the limit of life.

6. As for “man’s corrupt nature”, there is no morality in nature – just whatever is most efficient for the survival of the species. Morality, “positive (man-made) law” and justice are human inventions designed to maintain harmonious relations within society.

11. Denying “absolute truth” does not invalidate discussion, it permits it. “Absolute truth” – had it existed – would invalidate all possible discussion.

Truth and reality are two different concepts – not to be confused. There is only one reality but as many truths as there are observers (witnesses).

Here is my definition of truth :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5636#156235

.

Dear Joe,

«Here is my definition of truth:»

Oh, how could I miss that fascinating discussion?! I wanted to comment but then discovered that the topic was closed in 2013. Let me just say for now that truth and information have practically nothing to do with each other.

Now your responses to Runner are also very interesting:

«How can there “be” such a thing as “nothing”?»

Well, in common speech, "nothing" simply means uninteresting/irrelevant. When you say "There is nothing in the room", that room still has plenty of air (or at least space), it may even have a bed, but that's not what you were looking for; or when you say "I'm left with nothing" you may mean that your bank-balance is 0 or negative, because for the purpose of that conversation, only money is relevant (so your cold, hunger and misery do not count, though they aren't truly "nothing").

«As for “man’s corrupt nature”, there is no morality in nature»

But there is morality beyond nature. Such inaccurate expressions of "divine nature" or "corrupt nature" actually refer to that portion of man that is beyond nature.

«“Absolute truth” – had it existed – would invalidate all possible discussion.»

Indeed. Absolute Truth cannot exist because that would have placed it in juxtaposition with other exiting things, rendering it relative rather than absolute! Truth is still Truth, but valid discussions are only about relative truths.

And yesterday you wrote:

«while only God can be perfectly good, anybody else (even including Christ) was - by not being God - not quite as good ?»

Only under the nonsensical assumption as if anyone or anything could exist outside God.
Since there is nothing but God, the above statement is true, yet empty.
Truly all is good, but this is of no practical value until you realise that all is God!

Oops, sorry, Banjo - most of my last post was for you, only the last part was for Joe (Loudmouth). I really messed it up...

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

I asked :

« Whichever way you look at it, it's always difficult to explain how a baby can be born without a father, isn’t it ? What’s your explanation, Spencer ? »
.

And you promptly replied :

« What's my explanation to you, a God-denier and Christophobic? You are not yet ready to consider matters concerning the Kingdom of God »
.

A heavily charged emotional reply, OzSpen. There’s electricity in the air. It’s quite tangible – and I think it's no exaggeration to say that you are shooting from the hip as though your life were in in danger. I sincerely hope it is not !

I’ll leave it to you to reflect on the incident. You may be assured that I do not in the least feel offended.

I interpret it simply as a vivid expression of your unconditional faith.

Personally, I see no reason to deny that there is a god. I simply see no reason to believe there is one. My mind remains open on the question in the event that some irrefutable evidence may, possibly, be forthcoming sometime in the future.

In the meantime, I recognize that the notion of god as a concept and an ideal exists in some people’s minds as a source of inspiration and assistance in their daily lives. I, personally, do not feel the need for a concept or ideal of that nature.

Also, George Virsik, here on OLO, tells me that I am a Christian because I have been baptised and confirmed as a boy. I see no reason to deny that either. But, quite frankly, I prefer to consider myself simply as an ordinary person – which is what I was prior to my baptism and confirmation.

That said, I am irremediably steeped in Christian culture and more than grateful to my family for that.

Here is one of George’s articles you may be interested in, titled : “On the rational dimension of Christian faith” :

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20605&page=0

.

'Fools think their own way is right, but the wise listen to others'.

Well you must be pretty darn foolish then
Because you never listen to anything I have to say.

You should think before you write, it goes BOTH ways.

Yuyutsu,

<<Indeed. Absolute Truth cannot exist because ... >>

You stated you do not believe in absolute truth. However, here you have created your own absolute: 'Absolute Truth cannot exist'.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I just wanted to say that I found your post to Joe (Loudmouth2) on page 8 of this thread very interesting indeed.

Prof. Barbara Thiering’s book "Jesus The Man" seems to be full of a lot of good sense – though I’m not quite so sure about the introduction of which you cite a brief passage in your second post on page 9 of the thread.

I’m inclined to think that much of the narrative about Jesus is compounded with myth and legend, and also enriched and glorified beyond reality to a fairly large extent.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the books of the New Testament were not just written in order to leave a historical trace of Jesus and his life. They are especially imbued with a fervent desire and clear objective to evangelise and spread the Christian faith.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with that, but I think it's important that we keep it in mind in evaluating the authenticity of the narrative.

.

Dear Spencer,

«You stated you do not believe in absolute truth. However, here you have created your own absolute: 'Absolute Truth cannot exist'.»

But obviously I believe in God, the one and only Absolute Truth, whom existence itself depends on, whom nothing can exist outside, whom it is nonsensical to speak of anything/anyone besides, yet is not subject to anything in His/Her/Its own creation, including existence.

Only God is Absolute - my statement (or any other statement for that matter), "Absolute Truth cannot exist", while you may verify its correctness yourself, is not absolute.

You are intelligent enough so you can do some homework and verify for yourself that "God exists" would be a heresy. Do love God, Do worship God, Do think of God at all times, but please do not insult and degrade Him by attributing Him with existence!

Hi Yuyutsu,

No worries :)

That last paragraph above, responding to Spencer: do you mean that, because everything IS God, and nothing exists outside of him/her/it, that it is degrading and blasphemous to think of him/her/it outside of, or apart from, the rest of the world ? Or vice versa ?

As a non-believer, I'm happy to replace 'God' with 'the laws of physics' in all that: that nothing in the universe operates outside of the laws of physics. Fair enough, no need for any gods in any of that. Us humans create meaning (or not) as best we can in order to live as meaningfully as possible. Then we die. Nothing afterwards but, hopefully, other people's memories of us. Fair enough.

Joe

OzSpen,

You have given me a review of the late Prof. Barbara Thiering's
book, "Jesus The Man," done by the Matthias Media publication -
"The Briefing." A monthly news and resource magazine for
Evangelical Christians who are committed to the Christian
Gospel message that Jesus is the saviour of humanity.

And you expect me to take the review seriously as seriously
as you obviously do?

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I found Prof. Barbara Thiering's book really interesting.

She provided a radically different history of the life of
Christ based on her 20 year research into the Dead Sea
Scrolls and the New Testament.

It gave us a new definition of scripture - that it is written
on two levels.

The publication of her book of course caused a great deal
of controversy - which is still continuing. However, I did
not find that she demeaned the figure of Christ in any way.

On the contrary - as already pointed out earlier - we see
how His courage, compassion, and wisdom are of timeless
relevance and continues to be the wellspring of our
deepest and most powerful values.

Prof. Thiering's background was impressive. After an early
deep involvement with the Church and then frustration
with certain of its doctrines. Prof. Thiering became more
interested in the history of religion.

She entered teaching after completing university with a
first-class honours degree in modern languages in 1951.
During the next ten years she married, taught modern
languages and raised a family.

She developed her interest in religion with a masters degree
in theology, followed by a PhD in 1973. She began teaching
at the University of Sydney in 1967 joining the School of
Divinity in 1976 and lectured in Old Testament, Hebrew Theology.

Her studies lead to the Dead Sea Scrolls and a
20 year research project which has produced
remarkable findings.

OzSpen,

I do not mean to suggest that the review that you have
cited is not worth reading. Of course it is, it gives
a subjective view which under your circumstances is
perfectly understandable.

However, I was hoping for a more objective discussion from
you. Have you even read Thiering's book?

Dear Joe,

«do you mean that, because everything IS God, and nothing exists outside of him/her/it, that it is degrading and blasphemous to think of him/her/it outside of, or apart from, the rest of the world ? Or vice versa ?»

It is degrading to consider God to be limited.

Even existence is a limitation, what more, it is God's creation and it makes no sense to speak of creation or any aspect thereof independently of God, or of God being subject to His own creation.

«I'm happy to replace 'God' with 'the laws of physics' in all that: that nothing in the universe operates outside of the laws of physics.»

So what gives rise and sustenance to the laws of physics?

If you are able to see God behind the laws of physics, to understand that the laws of physics emanate from God, then you may (despite it being a taboo in the Judeo-Christian tradition) worship the laws of nature as your chosen representation of God. They are NOT the ultimate Truth, but they could be more useful and practical for someone like you than an image of a Father in Heaven. Please, however, do not consider your choice of deity to be superior to the choices of others, including Christians: all representations help us focus on the One and only God beyond.

«Fair enough, no need for any gods in any of that.»

Almost everyone needs them, it is unwise to think of yourself as an exception. Without gods (such as the laws of physics), this world would not exist and without a world, how could you possibly progress?

«Us humans create meaning (or not) as best we can in order to live as meaningfully as possible. Then we die. Nothing afterwards»

This is, from a human perspective. Please try to look beyond this limited and temporary situation.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You are quite right, the word “nothing” has been bandied about to mean all sorts of things – even the opposite to the original sense of the word : no-thing, “thing” meaning “an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to” (OED).

“Corrupt” also has several shades of meaning. However, while it seems we agree that there is no morality in nature, I can’t say I believe, as you do, that there is some undetectable realm or dimension beyond nature where morality reigns.

I have no way of knowing if there is such a realm or dimension and until I do, I see no reason to believe that there is one. For the time being, it’s just a hypothesis like many others (including the god hypothesis) that remain to be clearly and irrefutably established as things that exist independently of ideas concerning them.

In the meantime, I consider that the only thing that is capable of going beyond reality (call it nature if you like) is our imagination.

You write :

« Let me just say for now that truth and information have practically nothing to do with each other »

You have my definition of “truth”, Yuyutsu. It has everything to do with information – only information – in all its forms and manifestations.

I look forward to reading yours.

.

Foxy,

<<You have given me a review of the late Prof. Barbara Thiering's book, "Jesus The Man," done by the Matthias Media publication - "The Briefing." A monthly news and resource magazine for Evangelical Christians who are committed to the Christian Gospel message that Jesus is the saviour of humanity. And you expect me to take the review seriously as seriously as you obviously do?>>

There you go again with committing a Genetic Fallacy: 'You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit', http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

Instead of lambasting the argument because of its origin in evangelical Christianity, you are advised to deal with the issues of the topic being discussed instead of resorting to a dumbing down of its origin.

Foxy,

<<However, I was hoping for a more objective discussion from you. Have you even read Thiering's book?>>

Of course I've read the book. I have a PhD in historical Jesus studies, with an examination of the heretical, postmodern, deconstructionist writings of John Dominic Crossan.

Those wanting to read Thiering's 1992 book, can read most of it online, http://books.google.com.au/books?id=eO7Mntu_v3MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thiering's Pesher method of interpretation is similar to Bultmann's demythologisation and Crossan's deconstructionism. All 3 of them love to engage in imposing their own anti-supernatural debunking of the Scriptures. It is eisegesis full blown.

I wouldn't trust anything Theiring has written to be a reliable interpretation of the text.

loudmouth2,

<<nothing in the universe operates outside of the laws of physics>>

Who made the laws of physics?

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« After an early deep involvement with the Church and then frustration with certain of its doctrines. Prof. Thiering became more interested in the history of religion.

She provided a radically different history of the life of Christ based on her 20-year research into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.

It gave us a new definition of scripture - that it is written on two levels »
.

Offering a third alternative (“middle of the road”, as it were) between a minimalist and maximalist dichotomic interpretation of first and second century historical religious scripture impregnated with myth, legend and evangelistic propaganda, though highly ambitious, is, nevertheless, an intelligent and admirable endeavour.

It, no doubt, seeks to purge the text of its non-factual trappings while preserving, as far as possible, a fairly solid degree of historicity and credibility. Whether Prof. Thiering has succeeded or not is another matter.

What doubts I have are not related to the seriousness, ability or impartiality of Prof. Thiering. They concern the subject matter itself which does not lend itself easily to the perilous “high trapeze act” she has undertaken.

There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All existing sources are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. All extant (surviving) sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.

Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified on the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

That being the case, Prof. Thiering”s book must have shrunken like a woollen pullover washed in boiling water.

Not much left to write about I guess – once she had separated the wheat from the chaff and invited her readers to the table and help themselves – wheat or chaff ? ... or why not a little of both ?

.

Dear Banjo,

«You have my definition of “truth”, Yuyutsu. It has everything to do with information – only information – in all its forms and manifestations.

I look forward to reading yours.»

Truth is that which stands/remains at all times: past, present and future.

While Truth is absolute, information, even when correct, can only be referred to as "relative truth", conditional on circumstances and perspective. English has no word for "relative truth" - the Sanskrit word is "mythyA".
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/satyam.htm

OzSpen,

I did not reject Matthias Media or their monthly
news resource magazine "The Briefing" for
Evangelical Christians. I merely questioned the
objectivity of such a review on Thiering's
Book given that the organisation is totally
committed to the Christian Gospel message that
Jesus is the saviour of humanity.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I found Prof. Thiering's book interesting. It gave
me a different perspective. However it did not affect
my deeply held personal beliefs or my chosen faith
which personally gives me so much peace and calm.
It may seem strange that I can look at things from
different levels and perspectives and yet still
retain my own faith. But there it is.

I like your reference to wheat of chaff -
why not a little of both.
Why indeed.

I love reading your posts.

Foxy,

<<I did not reject Matthias Media or their monthly news resource magazine "The Briefing" for Evangelical Christians. I merely questioned the objectivity of such a review on Thiering's Book given that the organisation is totally committed to the Christian Gospel message that Jesus is the saviour of humanity.>>

By the way, 'The Briefing' is a publication of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglical Church. It is committed to salvation for all people who believe in Jesus - NOT to 'the saviour of humanity' (your words).

However, it's legitimate for you to accept Thiering's book, Jesus the Man, as an objective analysis of the New Testament evidence.

Theiring knew what her worldview was doing in debunking the supernatural from Jesus life and refusal to accept the God-breathed inspiration of the Scriptures, based on objective evidence.

When you are committed to Thiering's worldview, you commit yourself to agnosticism or even atheism.

Dear Ozpen,

You are doing it again, displaying a shallow and faulty understanding of logical fallacies.

Let me see if I can again assist.

As Wikipedia explains;

“Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.”

Foxy did not utterly reject the review by your clap happy lot but rather expressly said she wouldn't take it as seriously as you. This is perfectly fine and does not breach the Genetic Fallacy parameters at all.

Check out Realiabilism.

Foxy gave a brief synopsis of Thiering's book mainly through directly quoting the introduction.

You then proceeded to commit at least two logical fallacies, the first was attempting to appeal to a higher authority rather than addressing the issues raised in Foxy's post, and the second was engaging in an ad hominem attack along with your reviewers. You claimed “All was not well with Barbara“ and your reviewers used terms like;

“Dr Thiering is suffering from two common diseases...”,

“Dr Thiering has this one bad. To claim, as she did, that much of Christianity is false and misguided (including belief in the resurrection and divinity of Christ) and yet still call herself a ‘Christian’, shows the disease in an advanced stage.”

“One can only pray that Dr Thiering will soon recover ... and hope that not too many people will become infected through contact with her work.”

It really is appalling and ropes in yet another logical fallacy, appeal to emotion.

“Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.”

Why on earth would anyone take a review couched in these terms seriously?

Anyway I am enjoying lifting your understanding of logical fallacies and it has been a good chance to brush up on them too so thank you for that at least.

OzSpen,

I'm quite happy with the notion that nobody or nothing 'made' the laws of physics, that they have always operated impersonally and regardless.

The problem with believing that a mythical god 'made' the laws of the universe is that one is forced to ask, " Then who or what made him/her/it ? " Then: "In turn, who made him/her/it ? " And so on, ad infinitum. Pretty pointless.

And of course, you are assuming that in a heaven, the laws of physics (or respiration, or metabolism and digestion) don't apply. So gravity doesn't apply ? Your god doesn't actually 'sit' anywhere, he/she/it just floats ? So the little cherubim and seraphim don't actually need wings ? Since there is no atmosphere in heaven, nobody can hear the angels singing ? Christ, what a dreary bloody place. And you're stuck there forever. So is heaven actually a form of hell ?

Which brings us to the thorny question of: who created hell ? Yes, Satan was once one of god's angels, until god lost his ghastly bet over Job. But for god's sake, if he's so all-powerful, why can't he make us all good ? Why invent evil at all ? Wouldn't it be a better world if none of us ever had evil thoughts ? That we all worked together equally ? Boring, maybe, but better ?

Personally, I have great respect for the mythical Eve, tempting Adam with the apple from the tree of Knowledge. [Or was that a serpent ?] Thank you, Eve.

Too ridiculous, sorry :)

Joe

SteeleRedux,

You will never win a argument with the likes of OzSpen.

His purpose is not to debate with you but to convert you.

OzSpen would have been well placed if he had lived during the Thirty Years War: Bible in one hand and a sword in the other.........Never a God but always the Devil.

sorry Joe the words and character of Jesus make yours seem very very pitiful.

OzSpen,

I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist -
nor a religious fundamentalist.

I enjoy reading - and
seeking different perspectives and points of view on a
variety of topics and issues and then joining into
discussions on the topics as they come up.

On the topic of religion -
I found it interesting what -
Rabbi Marianne Williamson wrote in her book -
"Illuminata" . I'm not Jewish, but what she had to say
struck a chord.

"I don't like what organized religion has done to the world.
I've come to realize that true religion is internal not
external. The spirit within cannot be blamed for the
blasphemies carried out in its name. What some have done
in the name of religion, projecting their neuroses even
perpetrating evil on the world, does not make religion as
a mystical phenomenon invalid".

"Secularized organised religions have become in many cases,
as calcified as other institutions that form the structures
of our modern world. Our religious institutions have far too
often become handmaidens of the status quo, while the
genuine experience is anything but that".

"Religious institutions as such are not
the only arbiters of religious experience.
They do not own the Truth, for Truth
cannot be owned. Nor should they think they hold some
franchise on our spiritual life."

"They are consultants and frameworks but they are not God Himself.
We should not confuse the path with the destination".

"I feel that organized religion will have to step up to bat,
or it will wither away. Organized religious institutions are in
for a huge transformation - for the simple reason that
people have become genuinely religious in spite of them".

'I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist -
nor a religious fundamentalist.'

we know Foxy you are the type that believe all women and don't believe all women. You don't need to explain yourself.

runner,

Do try contributing something of more substance
to the discussion.

Besides, not sure what on earth you're on about.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I really am not expecting an answer from him. mhaze is a bit the same. I'm mainly doing this because it is a bit of fun deflating puffed up opinionated types and I get to do a bit of research on top of it as well as refining my positions.

No stress here at all.

SteeleRedux,

<<As Wikipedia explains; “Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.”>>

That's my understanding of logical fallacies as well. There may be some truthful facts in the content BUT the reasoning is erroneous and that creates a logical fallacy. This prevents rational dialogue between you and me.

loudmouth2,

<<I'm quite happy with the notion that nobody or nothing 'made' the laws of physics, that they have always operated impersonally and regardless.>>

Are you saying you agree with the philosophy that time + energy + chance created the ordered laws of physics?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Truth is that which stands/remains at all times: past, present and future. While Truth is
« absolute, information, even when correct, can only be referred to as "relative truth",
« conditional on circumstances and perspective. English has no word for "relative truth" –
« the Sanskrit word is "mythyA" :
« http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/satyam.htm »
.

Thank you for sharing your definition of “truth” with me and introducing me to Advaita, the source of your spiritual philosophy and definition of "truth".

I find the Hindu Advaita philosophy quite impressive and intend to take the time to study it further, with interest.

My initial impression is that while I am amazed at the breadth and depth of the logical construction of the Advaita definition of “truth” – citing a certain number of modern scientific theories, especially in the domains of physics and astronomy – it makes no mention of scientific facts which run counter to the definition and actually contradict it.

I suspect that contemporary proponents of the Advaita spiritual philosophy have “cherry-picked” some of the latest scientific knowledge in order to illustrate their definition and prove their point while leaving aside anything that contradicts it.

Be that as it may, I still find the basic philosophical thought very interesting and well worth further investigation.

However, I must confess that while I respect your religious (or, should I say, “spiritual philosophical”) beliefs, Yuyutsu, your definition : “ that which stands/remains at all times: past, present and future” seems to me to be more appropriate as a definition of the word “eternal” than of the word “truth”.

Judge for yourself. Here is the OED definition of the word “eternal” :

« Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning »

In my view, "truth" is not the only thing that is eternal. Love (true love) is also eternal – even lies are eternal.

But while truth, love and lies are all eternal, each word has its own specific meaning. Each has its own definition that is different from the definition of the word "eternal".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiORm4tW_VA

.

OzSpen,

You ask:

" Are you saying you agree with the philosophy that time + energy + chance created the ordered laws of physics?"

No, I'm suggesting that the laws of physics have been around from everlasting and they'll run to everlasting. I don't know if chance has anything to do with them.

Perhaps in deep space, some of those laws may be bent, but I don't know enough about physics to comment, I only went as far as Year 12 Physics, and that was well over fifty years ago.

Joe

OzSpen,

You ask:

" Are you saying you agree with the philosophy that time + energy + chance created the ordered laws of physics?"

No, I'm suggesting that the laws of physics have been around from everlasting to everlasting. I don't know if chance has anything to do with them. Perhaps in deep space, some of those laws may be bent, but I don't know enough about physics to comment, I only went as far as Year 12 Physics, and that was well over fifty years ago.

Joe

Dear Ozpen,

You write; “That's my understanding of logical fallacies as well.” Well no, this was specifically referencing the Genetic fallacy and while it could also apply to some of the others it is not universal.

Hopefully you have had the chance to reflect on the language used by the review you linked to and are able to accept it as ad hominem and emotive and thus rightly rejected.

Dear Banjo,

«I suspect that contemporary proponents of the Advaita spiritual philosophy have “cherry-picked” some of the latest scientific knowledge in order to illustrate their definition and prove their point while leaving aside anything that contradicts it.»

Guilty as charged, I used to do those things myself. Such reckless attempts to popularise Advaita at all costs were common in the New-Age movement and probably contributed to its downfall. I was always too enthusiastic to save the world, without first asking whether it wanted to be saved (at the age of 7 I decided to free the children that were locked behind a high wall in a monastery run by cruel witch-like nuns in black. I ran with a toy gun, shot in the air and shouted "you are free", "I've come to save you", but these ungrateful kids instead threw a rock down the wall which hit my head, sending me to the emergency-room).

But I try not to commit this mistake any more and accept that Advaita is not intended to be popular, but is meant for the fewer students and seekers who seriously want to know the One ultimate Reality, be it called 'God', 'Truth', 'Love', 'the Absolute' or by any other name (the Sanskrit name is 'Brahman', which must not to be confused with 'Brahma', the creator-deity). To avoid such populist interpretations, one ought to study Advaita with a qualified teacher within an established lineage, which I now do.

That said, I do not find contradictions between science and Advaita:

We need to distinguish between Reality and our experience(s) of it. Despite all being One, despite there truly being nothing but God, we do for now, like it or not, EXPERIENCE duality/plurality. Objectiveness is one such experience - and empirical science is the correct tool to investigate and determine facts WITHIN THAT EXPERIENCE. We also, for example, experience another form of duality while dreaming (both when sleeping and within aboriginal dream-time), but empirical science is of no use there.

Since Advaita speaks of the ultimate reality and science speaks of a specific experience, no contradictions are possible.

Dear Banjo,

Regarding the precise choice of words, truth can be approached from so many different angles and so it can have that many names with different nuances.

'Love' in essence is a synonym of 'truth' because it points to our essential oneness. To the extent that we experience duality/plurality, we can only love (true, not for-profit, love) ourselves, it just makes no sense otherwise - it is only the glimpse into the truth of Oneness which allows us to expand our sense of "self" to also love "others".

As far as we know, Jesus never explained to his disciples WHY one ought to love their fellow/neighbour, even their enemies. Perhaps this was because his disciples were simple people and not such great intellectuals. Nevertheless he just told them to do it, knowing that it will remove their psychological barriers, their cognitive dissonance which prevents them from finding the Oneness of all, the Truth, God.

Unlike 'Truth' which is a stronger noun, 'Eternal' is an adjective and also includes that which has a beginning (but no end), the intermittent (which eventually must return) and that which can change (but not disappear completely).

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your explanations. I look forward to learning more about the spiritual philosophy of Advaita from authoritative sources as soon as I get a chance to do so.

As for the “contradictions between science and Advaita”, you may recall that I cited an example in my definition of “truth” :

« The star we claim to see may have disappeared from the heavens millions of years ago. That does not alter the fact that we are telling the truth in claiming to see it. Truth is not reality in this instance. »

Here is the full definition once again :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5636#156235
.

Also, you write :

« 'Love' in essence is a synonym of 'truth' because it points to our essential oneness. To the extent that we experience duality/plurality, we can only love (true, not for-profit, love) ourselves, it just makes no sense otherwise - it is only the glimpse into the truth of Oneness which allows us to expand our sense of "self" to also love "others". »

While we are all members of the same (“one”) species, each and every “one” of us is unique and cannot be replaced by another. I can never be an “other” and an “other” can ever be me.

From my point of view, the only “oneness” we share is that of being members of a common species, homo sapiens. All “others” are unique, different, autonomous, and entirely independent. We are similar but not "one".

I also consider that to love another is not to love oneself – quite the opposite. Love often involves denial of self for the benefit of "other". There is usually an element of self-sacrifice. War heroes are extreme cases.

I do not see truth and love as being synonymous. Naturally, love exists only if it is true. If not, it is not love. But that could be said about anything. A haircut is a haircut only if it is true. If it is not true, it is not a haircut.

That does not make truth and haircut synonymous.

.

loudmouth2,

<<No, I'm suggesting that the laws of physics have been around from everlasting and they'll run to everlasting. I don't know if chance has anything to do with them. >>

What evidence do you have as proof the laws of physics are eternal?

Ozspen,

Please keep at it with LOUDmouth. I reckon he needs all to converting to Christianity you can give him.

Mr Opinion,

<<Please keep at it with LOUDmouth. I reckon he needs all to converting to Christianity you can give him.>>

I have no drawing power to Christ. That's left to God the Father. My role is to present the claims of Christ and defend the Christian faith.

You'll see me less and less on this forum because of the tirade of logical fallacies that come when I present a biblical view on a topic. You know as well as I that these fallacies are meant to divert attention away from the topic being pursue.

OzSpen,

They seem to have been eternal so far :) But I agree, that half a dozen countries should set aside, say, fifty physical scientists each, to study how the world and the universe works from day to day for, say, the next ten years, to see if there is any deviation anywhere from the laws of physics.

Oh wait, they're already doing that, with various astronomical observatories, physics departments at innumerable universities and institutions, and the actual on-the-ground day-to-day operations of us seven or eight billion people across two hundred million square miles, day after day, over the last few thousand years, more or less conforming to those laws.

But you never know :)

Hmm, nothing yet ...

Joe

'You'll see me less and less on this forum because of the tirade of logical fallacies that come when I present a biblical view on a topic. You know as well as I that these fallacies are meant to divert attention away from the topic being pursue.'

hope not Ozspen. It is true that god deniers are not backed by science or rational. I believe however just like utube and facebook opportunities to declare truth are becoming less available and much more heavily censored. Can you believe that anyone who contradicts, exposes and speaks against the World Health Organisation is taken down from utube. This was the mob in February who said their was no human to human transmission of the coronavirus. They also criticised countries for cancelling flights from China. Don't be discouraged by those not interested in truth. Personally I know a number of people who have come to Christ lately. You don't know how many truth seekers are listening in. It is only Christ who can soften a heart and open a person to seek the truth.

loudmouth2,

<<They seem to have been eternal so far :) But I agree, that half a dozen countries should set aside, say, fifty physical scientists each, to study how the world and the universe works from day to day for, say, the next ten years, to see if there is any deviation anywhere from the laws of physics.>>

There's no need to get more physical scientists working on how the universe works daily. God has already told us that: 'For in him [Jesus the Son] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17).

I have greatly benefitted from what astronomers have taught us about the complexity and beauty of the universe - pointing to a Great Creator of the intricacy of design. This universe continues to 'hold together' by the power of God. The reliable Scriptures have told us this.

runner,

<<Don't be discouraged by those not interested in truth. Personally I know a number of people who have come to Christ lately. You don't know how many truth seekers are listening in. It is only Christ who can soften a heart and open a person to seek the truth.>>

Thank you so much for your encouragement.

Some posters on OLO are so bad with their attacks and logical fallacies that I won't open their posts - to avoid further rants at me personally or my God.

'Some posters on OLO are so bad with their attacks and logical fallacies that I won't open their posts - to avoid further rants at me personally or my God.'

As you know Ozspen I am no theologian and sometimes am not very proud of the way I fight back. I remind myself that Christ Himself the Truth was mocked, criticised, falsely accused and then died for those who did these things.

I have often thought of leaving olo but overall after about 15 years have found that the secularist/Marxist/god deniers have no science, rational or truth on their side. That is why they always revert to attacks rather than reason. I appreciate that by and large we are not censored by olo. We live in an ever increasing world that is hostile and intolerant to truth. Just like at the haters who demanded that Samaritans Purse were removed from providing medical care to coronavirus patients in New York simply because they were Christians. The usual twitter/facebook/lgbtwsde brigade really are disgusting bigots but championed on by the media. God help our children and grandchildren should the Lord tarry.

OzSpen,

OK, OK, you don't want tell us how many converts you picked up on this post; but there is something you can tell us: Pell - guilty or not guilty? You're in the God game so we reckon you should know the answer to that.

loudmouth2,

<<OK, OK, you don't want tell us how many converts you picked up on this post; but there is something you can tell us: Pell - guilty or not guilty? You're in the God game so we reckon you should know the answer to that.>>

Please tell me how much evidence you have to convict or not convict Cardinal Pell. I'm not in a court sifting through the evidence, so I'm not in a position to make any kind of judgment on George Pell.

Are you a criminal lawyer with all the evidence laid out before you to make a legal decision?

OzSpen,

God knows if Pell is guilty or not guilty because God is all-knowing.

Did you notice Pell's comment on the RC report where he said the same thing as you just said: That there is no evidence.

The important thing is what he didn't say: He did not say the RC report isn't true.

Even God can work out what is going on there because God is all-knowing.

This post is basically a repeat of a post I made years ago. It's purpose if clear up some misunderstandings that many here are displaying when they talk about the universe operating according to the "Laws of Physics".

It is a very common, even among people with STEM backgrounds, to say that the universe is governed by the "Laws of Physics". But this is not what physicists would say. For them the universe just is what it is and just does what it does. The universe doesn't need to consult the Laws of Physics to determine how it should act nor do the laws command it to act the way it does.

Instead, the laws of physics are mankind's best description, usually expressed in maths, of how some aspect of the universe will appear to be or to act when it is measured/observed. The laws are based on the accumulation of data gained from our previous observations and from logical/mathematical reasoning applied to the data. Certain fundamental philosophical assumptions are taken when making these descriptions: such as for example, 1) that the bit of the universe we observe is potentially understandable to us (ie: our intelligence can make sensible descriptions of what we see), 2) The behaviour of the universe is uniform throughout, so the laws apply here on earth equally as on a planet in a distant galaxy, 3) A simple description is preferred over a complex one (eg: if there are two or more possible equations describing the all of the relevant observations then the one which has the least assumptions, least inputs and is the simplest is the one we prefer to call a law of physics). These are just some example assumptions, but there are others as well.
In addition to these assumptions there is a mandatory requirement: All laws are falsifiable- in that they are descriptions which could potentially be proven false by some direct or indirect observation (eg: Newton's law of gravity is falsifiable and indeed was proven false by observations such as the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury).

--continued below--

--from above--

To help ground the difference between how the universe just "is" and its behaviours just "are" in contrast to our excepted behaviour according to the man-made "Laws of Physics" I'll give an example:

When an electron gets "hit" by a photon the electron doesn't think to itself and say: "I've got to obey the laws of physics" so it whips out a calculator and solves the equations of quantum electrodynamics and moves accordingly. No, instead it just interacts with the photon just as it is in it nature to.

However, whenever a human has observed an electron/photon interaction the best (most accurate) description of what has happened, to the limits of the precision our current measuring equipment, is given by a solution to the equations of quantum electrodynamics. Furthermore, because this same behaviour has been observed every single time an election/photon interacts we assume that in the future they will interact in a similar fashion. So we assume that by using rational reasoning, in the form of mathematically manipulating the equations of the description, we can predict future behaviour that would occur in a novel scenario.

'OK, OK, you don't want tell us how many converts you picked up on this post; but there is something you can tell us: Pell - guilty or not guilty? You're in the God game so we reckon you should know the answer to that.'

Well Mr O. Seven High Court judges said he was not guilty. We have not become as corrupted as the American courts with lying democrat activist judges yet. Of course Victoria is an exception.

runner,

The High Court's ruling does not mean the Cardinal
is innocent. The High Court's appeal did not ask
whether Cardinal Pell committed the offences. It
asked whether the two majority judges in the Victorian
Court of appeal in dismissing Pell's earlier appeal made
a legal error about the nature of the correct legal
principles or their application. Pell got off on a legal
technicality - not because he was found innocent.

Dear Ozpen,

You wrote; “Some posters on OLO are so bad with their attacks and logical fallacies that I won't open their posts - to avoid further rants at me personally or my God.”
Seriously?

Really? Is that really going to be your position?

Mate, you are the one who constantly brings up logical fallacies yet when it is pointed out to you that your use of them is utterly suspect you claim some kind of persecution rather than addressing the charge itself.

Where have I attacked your God? I consider myself a strongly cultural Christian, proud of those roots, who has a deep respect for the bible and utterly adverse to those who would take its teaching in vain to promote their particular brand of exclusionary religion.

I have rightly challenged your use of the charge of logical fallacies. You have at best a shallow understanding and a highly selective application of them. My suggestion still stands, go and learn more about them before inflicting them on the rest of us.

That you somehow feel the need to claim the victim card rather than address those challenges speak far more about you than the others on this forum.

This is an opinion site. If you are so put out by the opinion of others then why don't you go an post of a far more sympathetic forum.

To do so would be to deny the real utility of posting to a site where divergent views, though admittedly muted in comparison to the past, allow you to test your world view.

Grow up, grow a spine, and put counter arguments rather than cowering in victimhood.

'Pell got off on a legal
technicality - not because he was found innocent.'

Foxy even you are smart enough to know that in our court system one is innocent until proven guilty. I know the lying left like to change it for those they dislike but you are talking garbage. He was not found innocent just like you have not been found innocent of child abuse. It is only the corrupt Victorian Police and Court that act this way. We could advertise in the paper for those who you might of abused if you like.

runner,

Sorry I don't understand what you are talking about.
You make no sense.

To SteeleRedux.

You consider yourself a strongly cultured Christian, and you're proud of those roots?!

That's a bit of a surprise. When the topics of religion come up, I had you pegged as part of the anti Christian swarm that post on those topics. If I was wrong, I appologize for that.

.

Dear Runner,

.

The High Court decision in Pell's case was as follows :

« The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents. »

Consequently, the Court ordered that :

« (a) the appeal be allowed; and

« (b) the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place. »
.

To acquit means to “free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty” (OED).

As the High Court indicated : the jury should have “entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt” – despite “the assumption that [it] assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable”.
.

The applicable Common Law principles were :

1. “presumption of innocence” of the accused

2. charges to be proven by the prosecution

3. proof defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt”

Justice depended on the nature and quality of the facts presented to the court by the prosecution.

The High Court considered that in Pell's case, the prosecution had not established the facts "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to prove the charges.

There is nothing unusual about that. In cases that boil down to “my word against yours”, the principle of “presumption of innocence” acts as an invincible barrier of legal protection – not just for the innocent, but also for the guilty.

In such cases, "acquittal" does not necessarily mean innocent.

Because of the intimate nature of sex crimes, and the profound psychological damage, shame and social stigma they cause to the victims, most of them are never even reported to the police, let alone brought before a court of law.

For justice to prevail, nothing should be presumed in advance – neither innocence nor guilt. Plaintiff and defendant should be treated on an equal footing and each case judged on its individual merits.

.

To Banjo Paterson,

The only ones who should prusume neither innocence nor guilt are detectives looking for clues and motives around a crime.

In court, as with anything else, you have to start somewhere. Saying that your innocent until proven guilty just makes that starting place an safe starting place. If you start off with someone being guilty and needing to prove their innocence, then that has no justice in it. All it will do is create a corrosive justice system.

As for the system you're asking, to go to court presumed neither guilty nor innocent, that isn't a practical solution because people will stil have a starting place to go on where either the defendant has to prove their innocence regardless if there is any merit to the accusations against them, or the prosecutor has to prove their guilt. Neither the judge nor the jury will have a middle ground starting place. They will take one side or another and destabilize any justice that can be had.

More so then that though, if a person has to prove their innocence, regardless if there is a condition of proving guilt as well, then anyone with an accusation has power over them. You can be accused of anything and have to prove that your innocent. The accuser has nothing to lose, even if they don't prove the guilt. But the accused have everything to lose if they don't prove they are innocent.

Thus making a slander based justice system, and no justice in it.

SteeleRedux,

<<Where have I attacked your God? I consider myself a strongly cultural Christian, proud of those roots, who has a deep respect for the bible and utterly adverse to those who would take its teaching in vain to promote their particular brand of exclusionary religion.>>

From where did you get the idea that before God, you need to become a strong cultural Christian to enter God's kingdom? Or, are you a cultural Christian to affirm these characteristics: http://www.gotquestions.org/cultural-Christianity.html.

As a cultural Christian, do you worship with any group of people. This article states,

'There was no such thing as cultural Christianity in the days of the early church. In fact, to be a Christian was to more than likely be marked as a target of persecution. The very term Christian was coined in the city of Antioch as a way to identify the first followers of Christ (Acts 11:26). The first disciples were so much like Jesus that they were called “little Christs” by their detractors. Unfortunately, the term has lost meaning over the years and come to represent an ideology or a social class rather than a lifestyle of obedience to God'.

According to the Bible, 'no strongly cultural Christian' will enter God's kingdom . There is only one way to eternal life, according to Jesus' response to Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader: “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again [i.e. born from above], you cannot see the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A3&version=NLT

SteeleRedux,

<<This is an opinion site. If you are so put out by the opinion of others then why don't you go an post of a far more sympathetic forum.>>

You missed my point. I don't object to the 'opinions' expressed. It's the way some posters express those opinions with fallacious reasoning - logical fallacies.

In this post to which I'm referring you use this erroneous reasoning when you wrote: <<Grow up, grow a spine, and put counter arguments rather than cowering in victimhood.>>

'Grow up, grow a spine' is an Ad Hominem (Abusive)Logical Fallacy, which is where you are 'attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making', http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

You attacked my personal traits, 'Grow up, grow a spine', instead of dealing with the issues I raise, http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Why can't you admit to what you are deliberately doing in this response to me?

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« As for the system you're asking, to go to court presumed neither guilty nor innocent, that isn't a practical solution … More so then that though, if a person has to prove their innocence, regardless if there is a condition of proving guilt as well, then anyone with an accusation has power over them. You can be accused of anything and have to prove that your innocent. The accuser has nothing to lose, even if they don't prove the guilt. But the accused have everything to lose if they don't prove they are innocence »

It can’t be any worse than it already is, Not_Now.Soon. The conviction rates are so low that something like 80% of sexual assaults, including rape, are not even reported to the police.

I advocate that we make no presumptions regarding innocence or guilt especially in cases involving the most vulnerable amongst us (minors and the mentally and physically handicapped).

Another problem that needs to be addressed is our so-called adversarial trial system which allows the accused to remain silent. Pell’s trial is a good example. He remained silent and was acquitted without pronouncing a single word. The jury and judges never heard his version of events, nor was he ever cross-examined.

It was his accuser who was on trial, not Pell.

Pell’s trial is typical of most sex cases that boil down to “my word against yours”. The presumption of innocence combined with the adversarial system of justice assures quasi-legal impunity to the alleged offenders.

That does not qualify as justice. For it to be slightly more even-handed and still maintain the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence, either the adversarial system should be replaced by the inquisitorial system, or the right of the accused to remain silent should be abolished.

In civil trials, there is no presumption of innocence, no right to silence and the onus of proof for the allegations is less burdensome – not “beyond reasonable doubt” (at least 95% certainty), but “on the balance of probabilities” (just more than 50% certainty).

.

Dear Ozpen,

Sigh.

This is going to take a while by the looks of it.

Again with the fallacious use of one of the logical fallacies.

This is the definition of Ad hominem 

“it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

Instead as you were the one avoiding discussion of the topic at hand and I was attempting to draw you back to it this logically can not be regarded as an ad hominem attack by whatever tortured definition you would want to apply.

Instead you were committing the logical fallacy of avoiding the issue.

“Description: When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument.  Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.”
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Avoiding-the-Issue

Now I earlier put to you the following;

“You blessed someone who used the term Christophobic and said “Thank you for standing against the anti-God/Christ promoters.” Then you said of Banjo P “What's my explanation to you, a God-denier and Christophobic?” This is the very definition of the use of ad hominen attack, of “Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself”. “

Why isn't the use by you of those terms deemed ad hominem and why aren't you retracting them?

As to your link to a definition of a cultural Christian I am hardly going to accept one coming from an admittedly evangelical, protestant, conservative site am I.

The Wikipedia one does just fine; “Cultural Christians are deists, pantheists, agnostics, atheists, and antitheists who adhere to Christian values and appreciate Christian culture. This kind of identification may be due to various factors, such as family background, personal experiences, and the social and cultural environment in which they grew up.”

Dear NNS,

As I am loathed to let a misapprehension stand there is a difference between a cultural and a cultured Christian although there is no doubt they can be one and the same in a person.

Therefore you are welcome to rethink your apology.

To SteeleRedux.

My mistake. I thought you meant something more then just enjoy the fruits of Christian values. Though I guess at least admiting that you are proud of those values is a step in the right direction away from where I thought your position was.

To Banjo Paterson.

The difference between civil court and criminal court is that civil courts deal with loss and repayment, divorces and civil conflicts as a whole. Criminal courts deal with actual crime. An accusation in a civil court woun't put you in prison, whereas in criminal court any accusation that isn't justified can harm a person's livelihood by losing their license, bankrupt them with massive fines, or imprision them.

The stakes are higher when going to a criminal court, so the justification and the proof should be more solid as well.

I don't like that rape is a crime that is rarely is ever proveable, and so that is a crime that often goes unpunished in the courts. However if you think that a justice system like you described would be better then innocent until proven guilty, then I disagree greatly. Rape would be an accusation like any other crime would be, but because it's emotionally charged more then most other crimes, just the accusation would be enough to charge a defententvas guilty.

Keep looking for solutions. There might be other ones out there, but this one won't do,

SteeleRedux,

<<“You blessed someone who used the term Christophobic and said “Thank you for standing against the anti-God/Christ promoters.” Then you said of Banjo P “What's my explanation to you, a God-denier and Christophobic?” This is the very definition of the use of ad hominen attack, of “Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself”.>>

You are correct. I sincerely apologise to you and Banjo P for using the Ad Hominem against you, instead of dealing with why you are anti-God in relation to the topic being discussed.

<<As to your link to a definition of a cultural Christian I am hardly going to accept one coming from an admittedly evangelical, protestant, conservative site am I.>>

There you go again with committing a Genetic Logical Fallacy: 'You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came', http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic.

Here you admitted the origin was from an evangelical, Protestant, conservative site, thus making it unacceptable for your consideration.

You thus engaged in fallacious reasoning to make my citation look negative because of its source. To avoid this error in reasoning, you need to deal with the content of the quote and not discard it because of your opposition to those who are evangelical, Protestant and conservative.

Dear Ozpen,

Once again you are using the Genetic Fallacy incorrectly.

I was not disputing the notion of a cultural Christian but rather making the argument for accepting one definition of it over another.

In doing so I was challenging your 'False Attribution'.

False Attribution is “A specific fallacy where an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased, or fabricated source in support of an argument.”

So I was perfectly within my rights to reject the definition offered by you from a small, religiously fundamentalist, and indisputably biased group who does not even represent the wider Christian community as opposed to a definition from a far more broadly accepted source.

As to apologising for using an ad hominem against me there really is no need. The crime is more the fact you were employing the charge whist indulging yourself, that was the affront.

NNS,

Then - than. I read your post, then I was annoyed by the confusion between those two words - well, more irritated than annoyed; more resigned than surprised.

No, all charges against anyone should have to be proven, with material evidence if possible. Until then, anybody charged, Shorten, Kavanaugh, Pell, Biden, are innocent until proven - shown - to be guilty. An assertion is worthless on its own. Otherwise we would have something like a Chinese system where anybody charged would somehow, while incarcerated, have to prove their innocence, thereby offending the system and its upholders - and probably being penalised with a longer sentence.

And of course, where possible, institutions should minimise opportunities for any sort of assault - in schools, offices, churches, etc., potential perpetrators and potential victims should not be alone and/or in compromising positions; doors should be kept open when appropriate; a potential predator should not get between a potential victim and doors and other escape routes; potential victims should try to have company; etc.

Hi SR,

Yes, I agree, atheists can most certainly have what you call Christian values, i.e. without the supernatural aspects of course. Christians per se don't have any monopoly on treating each other properly, equally, kindly. I still love the Good Samaritan story - especially because so few 'Christians' seem to live by it :)

Cheers,

Joe

To SteeleRedux.

Wouldn't it have been easier and more direct to just say what you meant by cultural Christian, instead of once again trash talk certian groups of Christianity. OzSpen has a point about your undercutting attacks on Christians. It's a regular and constant thing. I assume you do this to make a point that you're better than them, or that they are lesser then you (same difference). In the end though it obfuscates any point you would have had and puts you in a worse position then what you accuse Christians to be.

To Loudmouth,

Glad you agree with the concepts of innocent until proven guilty.

Regarding the morals of atheists though, I'd have to say atheism has no morals. It has no philosophy for that matter. Though there are common types of atheists, I'd perfer people identify themselves with what they actually do believe, instead of just by what they don't believe. Otherwise you have to assume atheists believe in nothing (because they claim no other identifying label), or they take for granted their beliefs and values that come from the religions around them that they so loudly say they don't believe in.

It's a pet peeve of mine when someone hides behind nothing to really identify themselves with, and then takes opurtunistic and sarcastic potshots at anyone who has identified their core values and beliefs. Probabey simular to the pet peve you might have for me or anyone to misuse or mistype a word. Not suprised, but still annoyed and resigned to it.

That said sorry for the mistype. It will likely happen again, with any other word. I usually don't have the time or the energy to carefully proof read everything to correct all the potiential errors.

NNS,

Of course, atheism by itself has no moral philosophy except a belief that one should not and cannot rely on anything supernatural, i.e. on thin air. But apart from that, atheists are as capable of developing - indeed, must develop - alternative and solid moral bases as anybody else. In fact, we spend our lives searching and wondering, since we have no 'rock', especially one which says 'just believe, don't question'. That's hardly likely to provide anybody with an independent moral base.

Yes, it's never-ending and can get pretty lonely. But that's our 'cross' :)

Joe

loudmouth2,

<<we [atheists] spend our lives searching and wondering, since we have no 'rock', especially one which says 'just believe, don't question'.>>

At least you are prepared to admit your atheism has 'no moral philosophy' except it must exclude the supernatural. When will you wake up to the fact you DO HAVE a moral philosophy and that may be a combination of relativism, pragmatism, etc. However, the morality is created by the atheist and as such it is humanism in action.

<<Since we have no 'rock', especially one which says 'just believe, don't question'.>>

There you go again with another example of your straw man fallacy. Some Christians may be in the 'just believe, don't question' category but I'm certainly not one of them. Without evidence of God's existence and the verification of the historical Jesus, I would not be a Christian.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon

.

You wrote :

« Rape would be an accusation like any other crime would be, but because it's emotionally charged more then most other crimes, just the accusation would be enough to charge a defententvas guilty. »
.

I agree that rape is emotionally charged. But I do not see it more emotionally charged than many other crimes such as, for example, child abuse, domestic violence, murder, etc.

You note that “just the accusation would be enough to charge a defendant as guilty”.

That’s the standard procedure for all criminal trials, NNS, whatever the crime happens to be. In criminal trials, “accusations” are called “criminal charges”. People are brought to trial on charges of rape or sex offences exactly as they would be for any other crime. But the fact of being charged with a crime does not imply guilt as you seem to suggest. Guilt must be proven – whether "presumption of innocence" applies or not.

The main difference between sex crimes and other crimes is that sex crimes have the lowest rate of conviction of all crimes. According to one study, the conviction rate for rape in Australia is 7% – which means that 93% of rapists walk free. The conviction rate for all sex offences was 13%. A study in Victoria found that the conviction rate for rape in that state is only 3% – 97% of rapists walk free.

Naturally, I share your concern about the risk of innocent people being condemned for crimes they did not commit.

But, the fact of the matter is that justice has been far too heavily weighted, far too long, in favour of sex offenders. The role of justice is to protect victims, not criminals. It is headed in the wrong direction. The scales of justice are totally unbalanced.

The reforms I advocate could redress the situation. As justice becomes more effective they would have a dissuasive effect on future potential sex offenders. The crime rate would decrease proportionately to the increase in the conviction rate.

And fewer court cases – fewer judicial errors.

.

certainly listening to the god deniers pathetic arguments regarding moral relativism compared with the authority of Jesus Christ does put things in perspective a little.

Dear NNS,

You carry on with; “Wouldn't it have been easier and more direct to just say what you meant by cultural Christian, instead of once again trash talk certian(sic) groups of Christianity.”

I'm not sure why I should be explaining what a cultural Christian is every time I use the term. Thus far you are the only person who seemed to be caught out by it and as soon as that became evident I corrected the record. Indeed directly above my reply to you was a full definition of it.

However in reality erroneous assumption by yourself are not my responsibility.

As to the charge trash talk utterly without basis I'm afraid. Where have I done that here? Sure I am happy to rail against exclusionary teachings. I am utterly sure the group Ozpen linked to would not regard Catholics as true Christians either. And for Ozpen himself to claim “According to the Bible, 'no strongly cultural Christian' will enter God's kingdom” is to speak on behalf of God, to dictate his will, which ultimately is blasphemy.

What he is allowed to say is that in his opinion the bible clearly suggests that “'no strongly cultural Christian' will enter God's kingdom”, but no more.

One of the charges laid against cultural Christians in Ozpen's link was “Focusing on Jesus’ love and acceptance to the exclusion of His teaching on hell, obedience, and self-sacrifice”. That charge could equally apply the other way. That an unseemly focus on hell, obedience and self-sacrifice also removes people from the true message of the Gospels and the right to call themselves true Christians. Might I suggest that both yourself and Ozpen are skating on pretty thin ice where this is concerned. In fact the whole American styled, evangelical, prosperity gospel spruiking, overly judgemental lot of 'born again' so called Christians may well face a reckoning themselves one day.

Anyway it would be interesting to hear whom you exclude from the Christian group of true believers. Are Catholics Christian? Are Jehovahs Witnesses? Are Mormons? I consider them all part of the Christian family, do you?

To Loudmouth.

The issue I was talking about is that say you're an atheist says absolutely nothing about you except what you aren't. Think of it like this. If a Canadian or an Isrealie, or Norwegean came to you and said that they were Un-Australian. Would you consider that an answer for where they are from, or just a postition of antagonism towards Australia? The truth is that if they aren't a citizen of Australia, or at least from Australia, then they are correct to say that they are unaustealian. But that tells you nothing else about them.

To Banjo Paterson,

The idea of less proof needed would reduce judicial hearings has no logic to it. Making it easier to have a guilty conviction would cause more cases not less. Agai all you would need is an accusation to have a guilty conviction for certian crimes. It's a bad idea. Let it go, move in and look for other solutions.

It's easy to see that none of you understand the nature of religion.

You either belong to the LOUDmouth camp of atheists and agnostics or the OzSpen camp of Christian fundamentalists who only use philosophical debate to convert the atheists and agnostics like LOUDmouth who are only interested in proving that the Christian fundamentalists like OzSpen are off their rocker and around and around and around they go pushing themselves further and further apart.

Good luck boys! I'm having a good laugh at your expense :)

Mispinionated,

Can you read at all ? Do you understand anything about the complexities, overlaps and contradictions between belief and morality ? That an atheist can admire some of the symbolic figures in religious texts, examples of admirable behaviour such as Job, Tamar, Esther and the Good Samaritan without being religious in the slightest ?

Take the time to read people's posts slowly - you never know, you might be able to use some of it in one of your TAFE assignments.

Joe

LOUDmouth,

I appreciate your comments but you can still only tell me what you think you know because you do not have any credentials in what you think you know which is a shame because I still think you would have made a great Arts grad if only you had been able to qualify for entry into the program.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« The idea of less proof needed would reduce judicial hearings has no logic to it. Making it easier to have a guilty conviction would cause more cases not less »
.

Placing the plaintiff and the defendant on an equal footing in sex-related criminal trials would deprive the defendant of the quasi-legal immunity he enjoys under the present system.

I expect the initial reaction would be to reboot justice out of its current state of torpor and inefficiency and trigger a major increase in the current ridiculously low conviction rate of just 13%.

The increase should be exponential until it reaches its peaking point before declining back down to a point of equilibrium as the dissuasive factor takes effect (describing what is know in mathematics as a sort of Gaussian curve).

I would expect the conviction rate to stabilise after a period of time to at least 50% after having peaked at something like 80%, which can only be considered a fairly average overall conviction rate for most crimes around the world :

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

.

.

(Continued …),

.

By the way, Not_Now.Soon, I never suggested that “less proof” was needed – as you mistakenly indicate in your post.

If you care to re-read the precise details of the reform I advocate (cf., my post to you on the bottom of page 21 of this thread) you will see that there are four points as follows :

1. no presumptions regarding innocence or guilt especially in cases involving the most vulnerable amongst us (minors and the mentally and physically handicapped)

2. the right of the accused to remain silent should be abolished

3. the accused should be required to relate his version of events and submit himself to cross-examination by the prosecution

4. consideration of adopting a form of inquisitorial system of justice instead of the present adversarial form of justice in respect of sex-related crimes
.

It is important that the highest level of proof, i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt” (at least 95% certainty) be maintained, as at present, in respect of sex-related crimes.

Perhaps you will recall that this is consistent with the statement I made in my post to you on page 23 of this thread :

« Naturally, I share your concern about the risk of innocent people being condemned for crimes they did not commit. »

While there are no published statistics on the number of innocent people in jail in Australia, by extrapolation based on the statistics of the UK system (which we have largely inherited), it is estimated to be in the region of 7% of the total jail population.

Whatever it is, I expect it to remain constant. There is no reason why the reforms should have any impact on it, whether positive or negative.

.

To SteeleRedux.

You said:

<<I'm not sure why I should be explaining what a cultural Christian is every time I use the term. Thus far you are the only person who seemed to be caught out by it and as soon as that became evident I corrected the record. Indeed directly above my reply to you was a full definition of it.>>

The term's description was put into question between you and OzSpen. I just mis read what you wrote. However in your replies to OzSpen, my comentary is that it would have been more direct and easier to just give your discription so that that was clear. Instead, you had to put in your distaste for christians who are evangelical, Protestant, and conservative. As well as a long winded defense for ad hominem arguments that you use. A long winded but useless point because you do use that kind of logic more often then not. Even to the point that in some posts that's all you really say is a long snide remark aimed at your focused target. There is no point to argue that you don't trash talk Christians. You do it so regularity that you must not read what you write if your surprised by the obvious.

As for walking on thin ice. I think I accept much more of Christianity as being part of my brothers and sisters in faith, then you do to accept all of Christians as one family. Clean up your own house before commenting on your neighbor's house.

To Banjo Paterson.

I don't know what it would look like to have a court prusume that the defendants are neither innocent nor guilty until proven either way, yet sill have the condition to prove guilt. On criminal cases, where someone is murdered, raped, or even a theIf who steals enough. Those are big enough cases that would get a negitive response for just being accused of them. If they are not protected to some degree that they are innocent until proven guilty, then the number of false convictions will go up quite a bit. If for no other reason but to close a hard case, meet closure for the people who have lost so much, and to but all of this behind them all.

If the court is to not prusume innocence or guilt, I assume that also mean for the court will need to get rid of juries so to remove biased crowds and try to train judges to be unbiased.

This is changing too much of the court system to be able to gauge if it will work as well as what's currently there, with the benifit of more justice towards rape victims; or if it would be much worse.

Personally, I'd rather have a jury reach a verdict, instead of hope that the single judge is enough to weigh it all out fairly day in and day out on all the cases they see.

NNS,

<<Instead, you had to put in your distaste for christians who are evangelical, Protestant, and conservative. As well as a long winded defense for ad hominem arguments that you use. A long winded but useless point because you do use that kind of logic more often then not. Even to the point that in some posts that's all you really say is a long snide remark aimed at your focused target. There is no point to argue that you don't trash talk Christians. You do it so regularity that you must not read what you write if your surprised by the obvious.>>

Thank you for your insightful analysis of what SteeleRedux does in many of his responses, in trying to trash Christianity.

I'm so pleased you, as a Christian, have joined us on OLO to help respond to those who debunk God and Christianity. Jesus warned us this would happen: 'Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also' (John 15:20 NIV), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+15%3A20&version=NIV

What we experience in OLO comments often amounts to 'persecution' against us, for Christ's sake.

OzSpen,

"Persecute Christ" ?! Many of us atheists have great respect for the myths and stories of the symbolic Christ-figure - he/it represents a coming-together of many of the best Greek, Jewish, Indian and other philosophical trends at the time (say 500 BCE to 500 CE). Whether he was real doesn't matter, it's many of the ideas that he is purported to espouse which are more important.

And I think they have guided much of the very best of philosophy ever since (with a few ups and downs, like the Middle Ages). But one does not need to posit anything supernatural or godly or divine or magic about any of those ideas - they were around before 0 BCE/CE and I hope they'll be around in another two thousand years.

Joe

OzSpen,

Try this, twenty minutes of pure delight, Five Mystical songs of George Herbert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7MYRaPalSU

Vaughan Williams' music - he was a non-believer too, but wrote some wonderful music with a religious orientation, 'Job- A Masque for Dancing', Lazarus, etc.

Sir Thomas Allan sings this masterfully with an excellent choir. I don't know if god has the best tunes, but he's had some timeless and loving help from us non-believers :)

Joe

loudmouth2,

<<Many of us atheists have great respect for the myths and stories of the symbolic Christ-figure>>

You have dumped another Straw Man on us.

OzSpen,

I just heard through the grapevine that you won't be going to Heaven.

Good luck with your search for salvation and the big fella said to tell you not to take it personally.

Mr Opinion,

<<I just heard through the grapevine that you won't be going to Heaven.>>

Many grapevines (gossip) that I've heard about are as reliable as a couple of jute ropes trying to pull a sugar cane harvester.

Why didn't you get it directly from me?

Let me tell you why I know for sure I'm going to be heaven. Like the Philippian jailer who asked, 'What must I do to be saved?' Paul & Silas gave the answer: 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved' (Acts 16:31). I did that way back in 1962 and have served the Lord ever since.

He's not like a fairy-godmother but is the eternal, living, personal, Creator God with whom I have a relationship. I commune with Him every day.

This is my daily experience: 'For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain' (Philippians 1:21).

Where will you be one minute after your last breath? Please don't give me Bertrand Russell's answer, 'When I die, I rot'. You know you are more than flesh, blood & bone.

OzSpen,

You believe you are going to Heaven because you have a strong religious view of the world.

For me there is no heaven because I have a predominantly scientific view of the world and I do not hold any religious view of the world whatsoever.

For you God exists wholly because you have a mostly religious view of the world. God cannot exist for those who have a non-religious view of the world.

It is because I do not have a religious view of the world that I can tell you that you will not be going to Heaven.

Dear NNS,

You are becoming as bad as Ozpen. You chide me for not being direct enough yet when I ask you a direct question you obfuscate and give a trite response which hardly provides an answer.

I will try again;

"... it would be interesting to hear whom you exclude from the Christian group of true believers. Are Catholics Christian? Are Jehovahs Witnesses? Are Mormons? I consider them all part of the Christian family, do you?"

Would you care to answer in the kind of direct fashion you are expecting of others.

Mr Opinion,

<<You believe you are going to Heaven because you have a strong religious view of the world. For me there is no heaven because I have a predominantly scientific view of the world and I do not hold any religious view of the world whatsoever.>>

Why must you twist what I wrote at: Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 12 May 2020 6:00:54 PM? 'Strong religious views' have ZERO to do with my eternal life. I have received Jesus Christ into my life, as Acts 16:31 indicated, and have received eternal life. That new life started from the moment I responded to Jesus Christ.

<<For me there is no heaven because I have a predominantly scientific view of the world and I do not hold any religious view of the world whatsoever.>>

Could yours be a materialistic/naturalistic view of the world that excludes the supernatural? I affirm the scientific view of scientific entities.

<<For you God exists wholly because you have a mostly religious view of the world. God cannot exist for those who have a non-religious view of the world.>>

This is another Straw Man. I accept the FACT God exists based entirely on the evidence in the universe and the historical science of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

You make many false assumptions about my world view and come to false conclusions. Why can't you listen to what I state and examine the evidence, instead of imposing your inventions on what I believe?

So far, you have not given me evidence that you read what I write accurately and do not impose your views on my narratives.

<<It is because I do not have a religious view of the world that I can tell you that you will not be going to Heaven.>>

What makes you think you are the sovereign god of the universe that enables you to make such absolutist statements?

Dear Ozpen,

You claimed "This is another Straw Man."

No it isn't. That isn't even close to what constitutes a straw man argument.

“A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. “
Wikipedia

Mr Opinion was directly answering the question you put to him which was “Where will you be one minute after your last breath?”

He was detailing why he was taking a different view from you. That is it.

Look mate, this is getting a little silly. You are using the logically fallacies incessantly with very little understanding on how to deploy them. You appear to be using them as a shield against any argument you are finding difficult to respond to rather than the very odd occasion where they may be appropriate.

Time to give them a rest.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

1. « I don't know what it would look like to have a court prusume that the defendants are neither innocent nor guilty until proven either way, yet sill have the condition to prove guilt »

There is no “presumption of innocence” in civil trials. Hundreds of thousands of civil cases are tried annually in the Australian courts. If you want to know what it “looks like” you just have to look at them, NNS.

The lack of presumption of innocence or guilt does not pose any problem in the civil jurisdiction. It would not pose any problem in criminal trials either. It would still be necessary to prove guilt on the basis of the highest standard of proof, i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt” (at least 95% certainty) as at present.

The only difference with the present criminal trial procedure would be that both parties, plaintiff and defendant, would be placed on an equal footing, which is not the case at present.
.

2. « … big enough cases … would get a negitive response for just being accused of them »

Some people would think like that, NNS, but people like you would not. There are many different reactions from many different people. The Pell case is a good example. Pell benefited from the “presumption of innocence” but that did not prevent many people from thinking he was guilty before, during and even after the trial when he was acquitted unanimously by the seven judges of the High Court.

Many people never presumed he was innocent. They still don’t.
.

3. « If they are not protected to some degree that they are innocent until proven guilty, then the number of false convictions will go up quite a bit.»

I already replied to that. I expect the current ridiculously low conviction rate of 13% for sex crimes will quickly increase to the average conviction rate for all crimes in Australia of about 80%, before declining back down and stabilising at about 50% as the dissuasive factor takes effect.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

4. « If the court is to not prusume innocence or guilt, I assume that also mean for the court will need to get rid of juries so to remove biased crowds and try to train judges to be unbiased. »

Trial by jury should be maintained. The Australian Constitution provides that :

« 80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes »
.

[ In Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the legal representatives to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied. A peremptory challenge can be a major part of voir dire (preliminary examination). A peremptory challenge also allows legal representatives to veto a potential juror on a "hunch".

The idea behind peremptory challenges is that if both parties have contributed in the configuration of the jury, they will find its verdict more acceptable. The existence of peremptory challenges is argued to be an important safeguard in the judicial process, allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors. Their use allows legal representatives to use their training and experience to dismiss jurors who might say the correct thing but might otherwise harbor prejudices that could infringe the rights of the defendant to a fair trial.
All Australian states allow for peremptory challenges in jury selection; however, the number of challenges granted to the counsels can vary between states.] – Wikipedia.

.

To Steele Redux.

You said that I didn't answer your question

<<"... it would be interesting to hear whom you exclude from the Christian group of true believers. Are Catholics Christian? Are Jehovahs Witnesses? Are Mormons? I consider them all part of the Christian family, do you?">>

I did answer it though.

"As for walking on thin ice. I think I accept much more of Christianity as being part of my brothers and sisters in faith, then you do to accept all of Christians as one family. Clean up your own house before commenting on your neighbor's house."

If you would like I can go into more detail, however my question from here is will you read it? You don't seem to read what I've written so far very well. Nor do you seem to know what you've written yourself. Maybe just practice reading what people write. -their full post-, then we can move on to more detail on the things you're confused about, and want more information about.

To Banjo Paterson.

I thing the crux of the issue from here on is whether criminal cases will resemble civil court cases. I honestly think they are very different, enough that I think it was a good idea to handle one one way, and the other the other way. This goes beyond just rape and sexual abuse/ sexual assault, but to criminal cases in general. I've given my reasons why I think this already. At this point I don't think there's much point in hashing it out further. We've reached the point of a conversation where we're repeating ourselves as if the other person didn't see it the first time.

One thing that I do agree with you though is that something should change, or at least look into what other options are out there for the sake of rape victims. So for doing just that, I'm glad to hear those options to consider more.

To OzSpen,

Thankyou for the encouragement. I'm glad you're here too. It takes a bit to get through the harassing of some people doesn't it? Even if it's one or two people doing the harassing instead of more then that. Kind of difficult to be civil and loving when the venom of slurs, misdirection, and out right attack are a constant thing.

However it's also said that a rope with two cords is stronger then one with only one cord. In the same way, having more Christians here to help keep you strong in the face of the hatred of others hopefully helps keep you civil and not let our frustrations or our anger get the better of us.

Thankyou for being there too.

To Loudmouth.

Not every atheist is needed, to make it difficult. A while ago I made a thread about how God's love makes us stronger. That this is both a strength to be able to be loving and to resist our sins and temptations; as well as an observational bit of evidance that He is real.

By the end of that conversation though, there were a few people who replied often to the topic, andthe topic was more an accusation for me just being Christian, and how horrible that is.

That was just by a few of the members who regularly post anti Christian sentiments on OLO. There are many others. Perscution isn't an inaccurate term here. Though ?I'm glad to say, that you don't seem to be one of those regurarly I'll tempered people that bash Christians as a hobby. I'm glad for that.

Have a good one and stay healthy.

OzSpen,

You believe in God because you have a religious view of the world.

I do not believe in God because I have a scientific view of the world and do not have a religious view of the world.

What you need to tell people is the truth about yourself, saying something like "Folks, there really is a God because I have a religious view of the world."

And then you can add "Folks, if you adopt a religious view of the world like I do you too can have yourself a God and we can go around converting people by getting them to adopt a religious view of the world."

Mr. O

The reason you don't believe in God is because you haven't looked for Him. Call it arrogance to have to worry that you were wrong, or call it laziness. Either way you've chosen your own blinders to be placed on. Talking to OzSpen, he's looked into several religous aspects. Guess what, so have I and so have many others who acknowledge the obvious that God is real. You have it backwards that people believe in God because they have a religous view. Most people have a religous view, because they know God. (In some way or another).

Chin up though mate. If you actually look for Him, I'm sure you can find Him. After all if I can find Him, then so can you.

NNS,

<<You have it backwards that people believe in God because they have a religous view. Most people have a religous view, because they know God. (In some way or another). Chin up though mate. If you actually look for Him, I'm sure you can find Him. After all if I can find Him, then so can you.>>

That's exactly what the Scriptures exhort all people to do: 'Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him' (Hebrews 11:6), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb+11%3A6&version=NIVUK

Not_Now.Soon and OzSpen,

God exists because you have a religious view of the world and God does not exist because I have a scientific view, void of religion, of the world.

Your view of the world is always only looking to the past for answers while the scientific view is also looking to the future for answers.

Eventually the scientific view will win out over the religious view. It's inevitable.

Dear NNS,

What twaddle.

This was my question; “Anyway it would be interesting to hear whom you exclude from the Christian group of true believers. Are Catholics Christian? Are Jehovahs Witnesses? Are Mormons? I consider them all part of the Christian family, do you?”

This was your answer; “I think I accept much more of Christianity as being part of my brothers and sisters in faith, then you do to accept all of Christians as one family. Clean up your own house before commenting on your neighbor's house.”

In what world do you think it complies with what you directed at me? “my comentary(sic) is that it would have been more direct and easier to just give your discription(sic) so that that was clear.”

Are Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses Christian in you eyes or not? Very simple.

SteeleRedux,

<<What twaddle.>>

There you go with another Ad Hominem fallacy against Not_Now.Soon.

You close down the basis of reasonable conversation when you engage in this fallacious reasoning.

When will you quit it and begin reasoning, based on the evidence from Not_Now.Soon?

Ha!

Opinion, don't make me laugh. You speak so much about other people's view, and no matter who you're talking about, you're always wrong. I'll say it again in case you weren't paying attention. You can find God. Take the blinders off, and open your eyes.

He exists regardless whether you view from from a train station, or from a library. Or see from a lighthouse or through a fog. He exists and is willing to show you so. But you have to actually care enough to seek Him. That's the deal, you actually have to try.

You can find God through giving Him a prayer. Ask Him if He's there, ask Him if He's real. Ask Him if He will help you find Him. Or just talk to him like you would a friend, tell Him about your day, your worries, your joys, what you're thankful for, and who you are concerned about. Just try to have a rapport with Him. One thing to ask Him is if He loves you. But of course this means to set aside the blinders and try.

(Continued)

(Continued)

You can glimpse Him by scouting the world and paying attention. Have you not heard? He made it. Look at biology, anatomy, ecology, and be in awe by how any of it fits together. Before you crap out and say evolution did these things think at how well your knee works, be amazed at your blood being formed out of your bones and your immune system start there and be trained in your thalamus to learn what is part of you, and what must be foreign. Trained, I tell you, what an amazing concept is a new cell being trained on everything else your body has fought and won against, and to send the warning signal so it can beat the same sickness. Be grateful for your skin that not only keeps a protective layer between you and the outside world, but also is the thing that keeps you warm, and helps cool you off. Something so simple as your skin is how you feel, how you touch, with nerve receptors that can tell temperature, pressure, texture, and warn you with pain so you don't harm yourself. That's not even looking at the nerves as the high speed communication system of the body, or your hormones which are like the post office sending messages and packages slower but also packs a punch on what they say. All of these things don't explain conscienceness, and a wondering mind. Or about curiosity and free choice. All of this is just by looking at yourself and looking no further.

Move past that and look at any other creature, or critter. Even if it is only a plant instead of a bug, a bird, or a pet. The same way you are interconnected with different cells to organize into different tissues, which with a diverse set of those give a system of organs that do different things serve a different purpose, and absolutely did not occur out of happen stance and lucky chance.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Don't be blind about the abundance and diversity of life on earth, nor be ignorant at how well they all fit together. Just outside of earth is a barren but beautiful lifeless space. The abundance and diversity of life so close of the desert of soace should wake up anyone paying attention. Life doesn't just happen. It isn't just inevitable. If all you do is pay attention you can discover that you were designed, crafted, and knit together. And that alone can give you a glimpse that God must be there. Even if you never see Him, He must be there. There's no other reasonable answer. Scientifically speaking God is the inspiring discovery when you see all of this and realize that you are not alone. From there what you can do is attempt to make sense of this or to go further, and try to find out for yourself and pray.

You can discover God exists through others. Again don't be blind. Take those blinders off. There are people that know God, from how He's saved them. From world wide the observations of angels. From experiences of answered prayers, and needs met. Those who know God, depended on Him, and searched for Him and found Him. That massive population is a resource for you. They can be a sign post, so that you know there must be God. But of course you have to take your blinders off and open your eyes. If nothing else look at the numbers before you pass them off as being unknowledgeable while you in your arrogant blindness say you see it all. Open your eyes man.

There is more, and if you are willing, you can learn. But you have to be willing first, and seek Him on your own.

Not_Now.Soon,

You find God because you have a religious view of the world. I do not find God because I do not have a religious view of the world.

There is nothing wrong with you seeking to explain your world through reference to a supernatural being. People have been doing this for millennia. For many early peoples there was no science only religion and astrology which both sought to explain and control nature and human action in terms of the supernatural and divine intervention.

Those of us who seek a scientific view of the world do not need a religious view of the world. We can work things out without the need for supernatural explanations. The interesting question is why do you and OzSpen reject scientific explanations of the world and favour religious explanations. I suppose the same could be asked of AGW and climate change denialists who also reject scientific explanations of the world in favour of explanations that have their roots in some form of neo-astrology.

When will you ever get the sequence correct, Mr Opinion?

<<You find God because you have a religious view of the world. I do not find God because I do not have a religious view of the world.>>

It's the other way round. I have a Christian world view since I, a rebel sinner, sought God, found Him and submitted my life to him through repentance and faith.

<<Those of us who seek a scientific view of the world do not need a religious view of the world. We can work things out without the need for supernatural explanations. The interesting question is why do you and OzSpen reject scientific explanations of the world and favour religious explanations.>>

I do not reject scientific explanations for scientific entities. I reject scientific attempts to explain the origin of the universe because they most often do not argue from scientific evidence but from presuppositions such as evolutionism.

Do you get it? I'm a Christian first and then see the world through God's lenses - a Christian world view.

OzSpen,

You were a "rebel sinner". Tell us more, tell us more! We don't mind hearing about your life of sin and debauchery. Most of us have been locked away in our anti-Wuhan Bat Soup Virus bubbles and are in need of a bit of excitement. And don't leave out or the naughty bits!

One cannot explain the origin of the Universe with science. One can only explain it using philosophy, which can show that the origin of the Universe cannot be found.

Or, if one has a religious view of the world like you, one can explain it by the existence of God. The religious world view says that God created the Universe. End of story as you would have us believe. Sorry OzSpen but I do not have a religious view of the world. Try it on some poor ignorant fool (I might suggest some names: Hasbeen, Shadow Minister, LOUDmouth, just to name a few.)

Not_Now.Soon: I hope you realise that the detailed observation and study of every single one of "wonders" that you listed (eg: your knee, body tissue, nerves etc) is what helps convince scientists that the theory of evolution is an accurate description of how life evolved on Earth.

What you need to provide to falsify evolution is an observation that is contrary to what it directly claims or contrary to any expected derived results that the theory entails.

For example, in loose terms one of the principles of the Theory of Evolution is that all the species that we observe on the planet today are related by the "tree of life*" where each branch is a speciation event. Where "speciation" means splitting of a single evolutionary lineage into two or more genetically independent lineages. So an excepted result of this theory is that all newer species should appear above the first appearance of any older species in the geological fossil records. Thus one of the potential many ways that you could disprove evolution is find an irregularity in the fossil record. For example, all you need do is find a fossil of a newer species (say any of the apes, the first of which evolved during the Niogene/Paleogene periods' boundary about 25million years ago) occurring before the layers of rock associated with first appearance of an older species (say the first appearance of the dinosaurs in the Triassic period about 240million years ago). But here's the thing: to date literally millions and millions and millions of fossils of all sort of species have been dug up and EVERY SINGLE TIME they have always been found in the geological order corresponding to the tree of life. In other words, we have gazillions of observations from the fossil record in correspondence with the Theory of Evolution and not a single a contradictory example.

(* Actually the Tree of Life refers to the species based on the more complicated life forms comprised of Eukaryotic cells, for the non-Eukaryotic forms the tree of life is more like an interconnected web due to horizontal gene transfer.)

in above:

"So an excepted result of this theory"

should obviously be

"So an expected result of this theory"

thinkabit,

It's easy to see you know your stuff.

Don't tangle with OzSpen and Not_Now.Soon because neither is searching for the Truth; they are only looking for converts.

thinkabit,

<< I hope you realise that the detailed observation and study of every single one of "wonders" that you listed (eg: your knee, body tissue, nerves etc) is what helps convince scientists that the theory of evolution is an accurate description of how life evolved on Earth.>>

Non-Christian biologist, Dr Michael Denton, dares to disagree with you and his research led to his writing: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Burnett Books 1985), http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X

Thirty years later in 2016 he released: Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Discovery Institute 2016), http://www.discovery.org/b/still-a-theory-in-crisis/

This professional researcher of evolution confounds your view that evolutionary science confirms how human life evolved on earth.

Could your world view be somewhat blinkered?

Dear Ozpen,

Again with the fallacious use of logical fallacies.

By its very definition Ad Homenim is an attack on the PERSON not the ARGUMENT. I directly spoke to NNS's argument calling it twaddle and then explicitly stating the reasons why.

Please heed my repeated advice and go and more fully appraise yourself of when to correctly apply the logical fallacies charge. You are a long way off that at the moment.

It's Ok OzSpen, it's a challenge, not an attack. Though I'd wish there was more respect then "twaddle." If Steele wants more info. I can oblige him this request.

To Steele Redux.

Who do I accept as Christian and who do I not? It's not distinctive based on denomination. Including Catholicism, Mormonism, or Jehovah Witnesses. There are things I look at to question if someone really is a Christian or not, but in the end it's up to God not me. That said just because I think Catholics are also Christians does not mean I believe everything in Catholic theology. The same goes with Mormons and with Jehovah Witness stuff. Added to those two groups though are a few warnings I've heard on each.

But bottom line one of the base elements for being a Christian is to trust in Jesus and believe in Him. If it's about knowledge base, then we need to be scholars. If it's based on being good enough, then we all need to be saints, and removes the need to be saved from sin in the first place. So while there are things to consider if they are Christian or not, the bottom line is do they believe in Jesus.

Now a question for you. What's you're point? You make it sound like I'm avoiding a crucial point or something, when what you said originally was "it'd be interesting to know..." After talking on a completely different line of thought in the same comment.

Or are you just looking for something to accuse me of, and nothing to do with the topics presented or the perspectives already brought up? When I said you have no argument against the ad hominem thing, this shows I'm right. OzSpen can say it's a fault of yours as much as he wants, because it's what you do. Consistently without fail. If that critism bothers you, do something about it by not doing it anymore.

Mr Opinion,

<<Don't tangle with OzSpen and Not_Now.Soon because neither is searching for the Truth; they are only looking for converts.>>

This is a blatantly false statement. The Christian faith is not only a search for the Truth, but it is a promotion of Jesus Christ who said, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me' (John 14:6), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+14%3A6&version=NIVUK

In addition, the Christian view of truth, which I support, is aletheia, i.e. that which conforms with reality. It refers to that which is true in any matter under consideration. It means truly, in truth, according to truth, of a truth, in reality, in fact, and certainly.

In relation to Christianity, it refers to the truth regarding God and the implementation of his purposes through Christ's life, death and resurrection.

I'm on OLO as a promoter of truth, Christian truth and the truth of reality of what’s around me. I don't need to consider searching for the Truth because I've found Him in Jesus Christ. Until your heart is softened towards God, I don't expect you to understand what I've written in this post.

Let's get back to the subject of this thread: Why does the good God allow Covid-19? He has given us reasons:

(1) To awaken us to our spiritual need for Him, 'Then Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls' (Matthew 11:28-29), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A28-29&version=NLT.

(2) With the death toll around the world from this virus, we need the truth about where we will be one minute after our last breath: 'Just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment' (Hebrews 9:27), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb+9%3A27&version=NLT

(3) The truth is God can send suffering and calamity for our punishment (e.g. Noah's flood, Genesis 6-9).

OzSpen,

You are not interested in looking for truths. You are only interested in shaping people's minds to your religious belief system. You feed on converts just like the Wuhan Bat Soup Virus feeds on the human lung.

I love the three points you finished with above: the all-knowing, all-caring, all-powerful God that you hold so dear and your only hope of salvation. And the reason I love it is because David Hume has demonstrated successfully that therein lies the fallacy of a justifiable belief in God. I assume you know how the argument goes and if you disagree with it please enlighten me on your premises for doing so.

If there is a God in our Universe (probably the same for all of the other universes) it will be that simple substance we call Water.

OzSpen: Could your world view be somewhat blinkered?

I'll reply to this in detail over the weekend since I haven't the time now. Also I've only got this and another post left today on this thread (4 post limit) and don't have enough room here.

But as an prelude: There are two issues I'll deal with:

One is further details about how science is a methodology for showing that a human made description about the workings of the universe is false*. Especially how it deals with conflicting results which is relevant to your last post to me.

The second is my thinking on the science v's god issue. But before this I would like to know what "god" is to you (eg: how would you define the term?) You may have noticed that so far I've said nothing about any god(s).

*[the scientific method never "proves" a description is exact and complete it just offers evidence for it (ie: it never asserts that a theory of science is an absolute truth about the universe). But it does provide a way to falsify such a description.]

I've read worse essays on OLO but not often. It actually surprises me that management has wasted such effort on a work from a clearly biased source with a perverted agendum.

The work itself is disjointed and grossly irrelevant in certain places, relying on said irrelevancies to inflame the reader at the expense of informing the message.

Generally, the arguing points or explanations are so weakly stated and so incompetently supported that composing a refutation and/or counter-argument brings to mind a question of the wisdom of engaging in a confrontation of wits with an unarmed opponent.

It gives one pause to reflect on the quality of a dissertation that earned a PhD coming from the same mind that produced this article. It would be informative, to say the least, in forming an opinion of the author, if we could learn what field of scholarship gave rise to said PhD. A word or two about his research interests will be of value as well...........if he would kindly oblige us. Presented with a polite request, I'd be happy to reciprocate.

Radio Free Asia is a USA-funded propaganda mill created in the 50s by the CIA . It was elevated from obscurity by Bill Clinton and now broadcasts by satellite to the communist and socialist nations of SE Asia. Distinguished by their absence from the list of RFA target nations are Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. The Brookings Institute's Catharin Dalpino (who had worked for Clinton as a news media advisor) declared RFA to be a waste of money. Dalpino said she has reviewed scripts of Radio Free Asia's broadcasts and views the station's reporting as unbalanced, that they lean very heavily on reports by and about dissidents in exile and doesn't sound like reporting about what's going on in a country. Often, she observed, it reads like a textbook on democracy and even to an American it's rather propagandistic.

thinkabit,

Please don't spend time discussing your view of science because that is not the topic of my article. I will not respond to anything you write about science.

<<The second is my thinking on the science v's god issue. But before this I would like to know what "god" is to you (eg: how would you define the term?) You may have noticed that so far I've said nothing about any god(s).>>

The Almighty God (Yahweh) is the self-existent, eternal, living, personal God (Exodus 3:13-15), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3%3A13-15&version=NIVUK

He not only created the universe (Genesis 1 & 2) but also sustains it (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17). Your and my next breath would not happen without the sustaining power of the Lord God.

He is the 'blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords' (1 Timothy 6:15), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Tim+6%3A15&version=NIVUK

He is the Ultimate Judge: 'In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead’ (Acts 17:30-31), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A30-31&version=NIVUK

Jesus the Lord is returning, 'But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare (2 Peter 3:10), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A10&version=NIVUK

Dear Ozpen,

You say to thinkabit;

“Please don't spend time discussing your view of science because that is not the topic of my article. I will not respond to anything you write about science.”

Yet in your own posts you have used the term on more than one occasion.

“Jesus' resurrection is based on historical science that leads to a reliable New Testament document”

“I accept the FACT God exists based entirely on the evidence in the universe and the historical science of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.”

Further within your article you have claimed “Evidence provided above indicates evil began with Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden.” If you are putting forward something as evidence then readers quite rightly can measure that evidence.

You really need to stop putting barriers up to open discussion of your position. It looks and is overly defensive.

Dear NNS,

Thank you providing a more fulsome answer, albeit still guarded to a degree. Its comparison to the first admirably illustrates why the original was indeed twaddle. Further thank you for spelling out to our fallacy illiterate friend the distinction between it and ad hominem.

Now that you appear to be cognisant of the difference I'm wondering if you could bring that appreciation to bear on the following jabs from your good self;

“pegged as part of the anti Christian swarm”. Both anti-Christian and a swarm, you weren't holding back there were you. Ad hominem or attacking the argument?

You also basically called Mr Opinion arrogant, lazy and of being blinkered. How is that any less ad hominem than any of my language?
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 13 May 2020 11:13:25 AM

There are many people I do not use loaded language with. They largely are those who do not direct that kind of language at me or at others. There are others who use it with gay abandon and I am more than happy to do the same without anyone crying victim. What gets up my nose are those who employ it but then cry foul.

To Thinkabit.

Look at it from this perspective. What is evolution? Is it an explanation only? Or can it be tested? Can it be pressed to see if it works or not? Can you look at anything today and say evolution did this, because of a change within our lifetime?

It's virtually untestable. And in that sense it is the same as other theories from before written history. They may be good explanations but there's no way to press this kind of explanation to see if there are holes in it. Or to see if it is false.

When someone says something evolved this way or that way, there are several assumptions in place.

1) That there was a change in place. Subject A use to be subject B.
2) That the change was due to a survival trait. The most desirable traits survive and get passed on.
3) That the complex world runs by these changes and there is no design to it.

Assumptions 1 and 2, can be challenged by a few questions of whether something actually changed or not. Case in point even though evolution is a popular term to place in any theory, (such as social theories), there's no evidence that I've found that human nature has evolved. Assumption 3 is challenged by pretty much everything else I said in the previous post.

To Mr. O

There's nothing in what I've said that is against scientific observation. Instead I'm looking at the observations with the observation that God is real. What you're talking about is rationalizing an excuse to not look and see for yourself. That actually sounds farther from a scientific view then anything.

To Steele Redux.

Were you offended by the term "anti-Christian swarm?" On any given topic that brings up Christianity, or even just brushes up onto it, there is a swarm people who have to put their two cents on how and why Christianity is horrible, stupid, or otherwise derail the topic that dealt with Christianity, into a topic of pro Christian, anti-Christian. If you would like a PC term for this observation, I'm all ears, but I'm at a loss for what that term would be. As for Opinion, so far he hasn't shown that I'm wrong on my assessment. After all why else would he decide that there is no God without ever looking into it.

Do you want an apology on accurate criticisms? I don't mind if either you or Opinion accuse me of Ad hominem. That wasn't my point to aviod the very same attics that you both use regularly. But instead, if I do say anything about the person, make sure it's accurate, and relevant. I can stand up to your critisms with both reasons of my observations being relevant to the topic, and accurate in my observation.

If I'm wrong on any of those counts though, I would be delighted to be corrected on the matters.

As for my answer. I'm not sure which parts you think was guarded.

SteeleRedux,

<<Yet in your own posts you have used the term on more than one occasion. “Jesus' resurrection is based on historical science that leads to a reliable New Testament document”>>

Thank you for drawing this to my attention. That is inconsistent by me. When I speak about 'historical science' I'm discussing the criteria ancient historians use to determine the truth of anything from history.

However, in this thread most of the others who use 'science' as a topic refer to empirical science that relies on observation and repeatability. It is this latter form of science that I said I would not comment on as it didn't relate to my article.

However, I was imprecise in not differentiating empirical from historical sciences.

Not_Now.Soon, you just wrote:

"To Mr. O: There's nothing in what I've said that is against scientific observation. Instead I'm looking at the observations with the observation that God is real. What you're talking about is rationalizing an excuse to not look and see for yourself. That actually sounds farther from a scientific view then anything."

What a load of gobbledygook!

God is only real to you because you have a religious view of the world where things can only be explained by recourse to the supernatural and you don't have to prove the validity of any of your belief system because all factuality is structured within the context of faith in God's undeniable salvation for believers.

OzSpen: The reason I was going to write about science was in dircet reply to your question "Could your world view be somewhat blinkered?". It was to be a clarification of what my world view is and why I consider it not blinkered but indeed very open (as opposed to fanatical religious thinking which is very closed and limited).
But now I've decided that I wont respond here but rather will create a new thread topic about it this weekend/next week for other people who are open to critical thinking to read since you don't seem to want to be challenged by it here.

Not_Now.Soon: You ask, "What is evolution? Is it an explanation only? Or can it be tested? Can it be pressed to see if it works or not? Can you look at anything today and say evolution did this, because of a change within our lifetime?"

1)"What is evolution?" : Evolution is the best description made by mankind that is compatible with our observations of the world around us about how species change and how new ones develop over time.

2)"Is it an explanation only?" : Yes, it is an description/explanation. But it more that just than because when combined with logic/reasoning it has predictive power. And it is this predictive power that makes science so useful in general. For example, evolution provides the fundamental framework that we use to understand viruses and bacteria and it is its predictive power which helps us develop medical responses to the diseases caused by them. So as you can see beyond being just a description it is actually a very useful theory.

3)"Can it be tested? Can it be pressed to see if it works or not?" : Yes! Just like any thoery of science, the statements claimed by the theory MUST be falsifiable by real world observations. (This is unlike many statements of religion which are very often stated as absolute truths: eg: Christ saying "I'm the way, the truth and the light and no man gets to heaven accept by me." How on Earth could you test that claim??)

--continued below --

--from above --

4)"Can you look at anything today and say evolution did this, because of a change within our lifetime?" : Yes! Evolution has been observed in the lab multiple times! Google it for details. It has also been observed in outside the lab, a famous example was back in 1975 when a team of Japanese scientist discovered a strain of Flavobacterium. This strain of bacteria has evolved the unique ability of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture and nylon 6 has only existed since the 1930's. In otherwords, this strain of bacteria has evolved and adapted in response to environment pressures within our lifetime.
But besides this, what I really fail to understand is why do you think it is important to find examples of it within our life time. Does it mean to you that something is not real if it doesn't happen within or near the present? If this is so, then why would you believe that Jesus existed since he is not among us in the present now??

Dear NNS,

You asked;

“Were you offended by the term "anti-Christian swarm?"”

Clearly I wasn't, but that isn't the point I was making was it. I am challenging the fact that you are quite prepared to use the term, along with the others I spoke of, yet claim I am the one who lacks respect.

“Twaddle” is an excellent word with a rich heritage. It means trivial or foolish speech or writing; nonsense.

Were your efforts to claim you had answered a question, when you clearly had not done so with any attempt at directness, foolish or nonsense? I made the case that they were and in returning with a more fulsome answer you did too.

But how do you know Mr Opinion was 'lazy', 'arrogant' and 'blinkered' because you have made the assumption; “The reason you don't believe in God is because you haven't looked for Him.”

If someone deems something is not there though their appreciation of scientific evidence then they are making a perfectly rational decision not to look further. That should have been the end of it. But you instead decided to berate him for not chasing down your metaphysical pathways. Do you have any sense of how arrogant that is?

To be labeling those who disagree with you an anti-Christian swarm is defensive claptrap.

However there is zero need for you to be more PC just as I have no interest in finding a more PC word than twaddle. You have no reason to expect that kind of courtesy when you are getting as good as you are giving.

Suck it up mate.

thinkabit,

<<"Can you look at anything today and say evolution did this, because of a change within our lifetime?" : Yes! Evolution has been observed in the lab multiple times! Google it for details.>>

I was raised on a sugar cane farm where there were examples of micro-evolution of one variety to another. Can macroevolution of animal to human being be observed today?

There are around 100,000 known fossil species. Only a small number of cases have convincing morphological sequences of change. Perhaps the horse is the best example, but it didn't involve a great amount of change.

The changes in the elephant may not even represent phylogenetic sequences at all.

My examination of the macro-evolutionary evidence concludes: There is a significant lack of direct evidence for major evolutionary transformation in the fossil record.

While Charles Darwin was attempting to show the public in his day the validity of evolution by natural selection, privately he admitted his doubts over evolution's capacity to generate very complicated adaptations or 'organs of extreme perfection'.

In a letter to his friend, Asa Gray, an American biologist, that was written in 1861 (only 2 years after the publication of 'The Origin of Species', he admitted this doubt, 'The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder', http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2701.xml

He also wrote that the view of natural selection producing the eye 'seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree', http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1859/1859-186-c-1861.html

Please tell me where macro-evolution has been observed in the laboratory many times.

(see Charles Darwin 1860. In letter to Asa Gray in 'Life and Letters of Charles Darwin [1888] 3 vols, ed F Darwin, John Murray, London, vol 2, p 273)

To thinkabit.

The idea that evolution is predictive is news to me. As is evolution used in any medical sense. To the best of my knowledge evolution is an after the fact explanation with no predictive measures. My issue with this I also mentioned in my response to the article about God and the Covid virus. That the explanation that the virus could be an act from God, that is a very good possibility, but going past that to say why He would give us this virus is a whole other issue.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20871#368073

In the same way evolution explains that generations of species change through evolutionary means. Going so far as to say one species turned into another, or branched into two or more other modern species. It's an interesting explanation, but nothing more. And unfortunately it's an explanation that is over used and largely unable to be tested for it's merits and flaws. The overuse of evolution as a buzz word in modern day theories puts evolution in a skeptical view in my opinion.

If on the other hand evolution can be a practical thing to help develop cures, or can be used in a predictive nature, then I'll have to reexamine my conclusions of it thus far. As of now though I'd need more information to see if the conclusions of being practical and predictive hold up.

(Continued)

(Continued)

That said you asked why the need for evolution to be seen in our lifetime, and questioned my faith in the same time. The reason is because evolution isn't being tested as a reasonable explanation, but is instead tacked on as the only explanation, and often times even adopted into unrelated theories. Evolution as a theory needs to be able to be tested so as to say when it doesn't apply as a reasonable explanation. Though I should have clarified. This doesn't have to happen in our present lifetime, only that an evolutionary change be observed within someone's lifetime. Thanks for the search for changes seen in our lifetime. Found an article about bacteria. Will have to consider it further.

As for my faith. I have my own observations, and I am aware of many other people's experiences and what they've said about their lives and how God has been in them. The thing is that Christianity and God hold merit observed around the world by many many different people. God is not a theory, or just something because of how I view the world. He's real and can surprise you when He acts or when He answers a prayer. Faith in God is stronger then evolution, because it is observable.

To Steele.

My criticisms of both you and Opinion, are accurate, and neither of you have pointed out that I'm wrong in my assessment. Opinion with his mission statement to all Christians is lazy and puts blinders on him to not look, not consider, not see for himself, even when more information is presented to him. It's an accurate criticism. The same goes for my criticisms of you as well. They have been accurate. As for generalizing the term anti-Christian swarm. I explained where I was getting that term. And considering it is a behavior here on OLO regarding any religious (and especially Christian) topic to derail the topic into a pro Christian anti Christian dialogue, then that term is also accurate. It is not applied to anyone who disagrees with me, or anyone who isn't a Christian.

I can just see OzSpen and Not_Now.Soon standing on the street corner holding a sign 'THE END IS NIGH' and calling out "Converts! converts! God needs more converts! Don't wait for salvation, sign up here."

It's all so predictable.

Dear NNS,

You opined;

“My criticisms of both you and Opinion, are accurate, and neither of you have pointed out that I'm wrong in my assessment.”

Then the same goes for my criticism of your response as twaddle. You certainly haven't pointed that I was wrong in my assessment. Why then were you offended by it and called it a lack of respect?

Something something goose and gander.

Mr Opinion,

<<I can just see OzSpen and Not_Now.Soon standing on the street corner holding a sign 'THE END IS NIGH' and calling out "Converts! converts! God needs more converts! Don't wait for salvation, sign up here.">>

This is another one of your Straw Man fallacies. With this fallacy you gave the impression to OLO posters that you refuted the argument about salvation and Jesus' Second Coming by presenting an argument that I DID NOT present. When you do this you are attacking a straw man. It's your fake understanding of what I didn't say.

Let's get back to the emphasis of my article. How could the absolutely good God send or allow disasters such as Covid-19?

+ Psalm 86:5 states that 'You, Lord, are forgiving and good, abounding in love to all who call to you.

+ When Adam & Eve fell into sin, all of nature was cursed. That affects what happens in our world today. When the Israelites were trying to escape Egypt (Exodus 7-11) and the wicked Pharaoh refused to let them go, God sent plagues. He did it at the time of Noah by sending a world-wide flood where God caused the storm in the ocean.

We need to see God in natural disasters, including Covid-19. What is he trying to say to rebellious Aussies who are kicking Him out of their lives?

OzSpen,

You are a sick man.

You believe God is all-caring, all-knowing and all-powerful.

Your religious view of the world tells you that God brings illness into people's lives to test them but he is all-knowing and does not need to test people because he already knows the result.

And why would he inflict illness on people if he is all-caring and he has the capacity to prevent illness because he is all powerful.

God didn't send the Wuhan Bat Soup Virus. It was some Chinese slob who wanted to eat a bat.

God has no place in science and philosophy. He only exists in your twisted mind that conjures up the forces of the supernatural and an ideology of salvation that gives people a false hope that they will live beyond death.

Please, just don't do any more damage to your position by saying that you are something like a member of the infamous Pells Angels or Hells Angels or whatever.

OzSpen: You ask "Can macroevolution of animal to human being be observed today?"

Well, if you did observe that then guess what- You've just FALSIFIED evolution. That is, you've just shown that evolution does not account for all the observations that have been made.

"Why would this observation show evolution to be false" you may be wondering? That's because the theory of evolution implies that the macroevolution of an animal to a human WOULD NOT be able to be observed today. In the theory of evolution one existing species DOES NOT evolve into another already existing species on another branch of a phylogenetic tree, rather one species may evolve into into a NEW species while the original ancestor species may or may not still exist.

So if ever you found evidence of a say a modern fish species evolving into a modern reptile or even chimpanezes into a humans within a human life time then you have just disproven evolution. But do you know what would be most interesting if you did observe this and thus demolish the theory of evolution. All of the world's biologists would celebrate! So why would they be delighted that the foundational theory of a whole branch of science they have extreme confidence in was shown to be wrong? Because that is the very purpose of science; for science to work people are required to question/attack its theories with real world observations. Scientists deliberately try to prove their theories wrong because this is exactly how science progresses. For example, if I asked you to name a famous physicist you might mention the likes of Einstein or Schrödinger. These sciencists are famous because they proposed new theories that replaced old very well established ones. Science doesn't hold its claims to be absolute truths! They are not sacrosanct statements that are to be protected from curious inquiry (unlike religions which in many cases will even kill people who question the validity of their claims)

Also, you ask if macro-evolution has been observed. Well 10 seconds with an internet search engine can answer this: eg. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php

Many people don't accept the theory of evolution because it conflicts
with their religious beliefs. Judaism, Christianity,
and a number of other religions teach that God
is the sole guiding force in the universe.

According to the Bible, God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Ultimate
End of all things. The wide variety of forms
of life is interpreted as a reflection of His love and inspiration. The Bible also states
that human beings were created in the image of God and thus were
elevated above all other forms of life.

Some people find it difficult to reconcile
these views with the concept that life on earth
has evolved through natural processes.
Some people also feel that the evolutionary theory conflicts
with the Bible's teachings regarding the
reality of sin and redemption from sin. They believe that sin tends to become mere
imperfection if humans are seen to be in the process of evolving
from a lower state, and thus the Gospel of redemption from the guilt of sin tends to lose meaning.

However,, many people accept the basic principles of evolution
within the framework of their religious beliefs. For example,
some Biblical scholars interpret the story of the Creation as a
symbolic, rather than literal account of the origin of human
beings and other living things.

They do not find this symbolic interpretation
incompatible with the findings of evolutionary
biologists. For many people the idea that
human beings evolved from lower forms of life does not
diminish the uniqueness of human capabilities and the accomplishments of human civilisations.

Foxy,

That's nice but what's your point?

Mr O,

My point is that if we listen to each other's perspectives
perhaps we just may open up a dialogue of discussion.
And even learn something. That doesn't mean that we have
to agree with each other - but it never hurts to listne
to another's point of view with an open mind.

Often times we say things and afterwards we think -
"Gee, maybe I shouldn't have said that, or maybe I should
have said it differently."

We can all work a little on our presentation. I'm sure
you'll agree.

Evolution is not an issue to my faith in God. Nor does God making everything mean that they couldn't have evolved later. As part of God's plan. Some might even think of people in that way. A work in progress that God isn't done with. However here are several issues within evolution that go unanswered

1) The world is so complex and not falling apart. Contrasted to 2) the ideas of entropy and the stark lack of life in space. 3) Then there is the depth of any species. From their anatomy, to their movements and innate abilities, to the interconnected workings of their body. This is not by chance. Things don't just move from single cells to complex organisms. The given answer in evolution is that these things happen. It's become that the term becomes a copout when faced with drastic unexplained changes. Somehow things changed and adapted.

Perhaps there are better answers out there. Perhaps there aren't any other answers that have more evidence. But with evolution there are some big holes in it, and at this time, I no longer buy it. I'd rather hear someone say they don't know, then to copout and say things evolved without knowing how or why. The assumption assumes evolution is the only answer.

To think there are faults in evolution however means your uneducated instead of meaning you've thought it through. Therefore evolution becomes a buzz word to insert into any theory that has change or adaptation in it's assessment. Making puberty is a form of evolution. One issue with any theory of evolution is that it's a hyped up term and the rest of the theory can be accepted because of evolution written in the theory's jargon. This has gone to the point of a conman's game. Look at the theory without evolution as it's term of choice and instead use the terms adapt, change, grow, mature, learn. If the theory still has merit when it doesn't borrow the hype of evolution then it might be a good theory. If not, let it fall on the rocks.

Evolution is an academic hype for something farmers and breeders have been doing for centuries. They breed certain traits for their food, their farm animals, even for their pets. If that is the extent of evolutionary theory, then that's fine. This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. And He does exist.

Moving on from the distracting side topics of evolution, and twaddle tantrums from SR. I'd rather move to the point of the topic. Why God allows bad things to happen. Why this virus which can be very painful for some people infected with it, as well as deadly to others, is here. I agree with Spencer's assessment that often our hardships are a wake up call to return back to God; to create more humility and cause people to care about each other; or even to cause people to care about what they do, and put their efforts into what they do instead of cutting corners. Perhaps regardless why the Covid virus is here those lessons can be learned anyways.

Foxy,

I don't give two hoots if OzSpen and NNS want to have a religious view of the world. They do that because they believe in the supernatural and not in scientific and philosophical views.

They will tell you that Evolutionary Theory is alright as long as one believes in God and that God is the Creator of the Universe. For them, without God there can be on such thing as evolution. There can only be someone else who says it is true.

Of course they don't want evolution to be true because it is scientific proof that there is no God the Creator and if there is no God the Creator then there simply is no God at all which totally undermines their whole religious view of the world.

Mr O,

Their beliefs seem to bother you.

Why is that?

Dear NNS,

Twaddle tantrums from SR?

Lol.

My dear young chap. You were the one who took issue with what in most people's book is a pretty innocuous descriptor calling it disrespectful and Ozpen was the one claiming it as an ad hominem attack.

How is my use of it a tantrum but the response from both of you not?

You put up “Evolution is an academic hype for something farmers and breeders have been doing for centuries.”

May I say what a shallow, baseless and ignorant understanding of evolution that is. Adaption is only one facilitating part of the science of evolution and if you are going to make ignorant claims like you just have please don't play the victim card when you get pulled up on it. It is getting really boring.

Anyway it does serve one purpose, to peg you as a fundamentalist style of Christian, hardly representative of the wider faith. There are many highly decent Christians who do not feel the need to reject the science of evolution and luckily for the world they are in the majority compared to the science deniers who infect the faith and loudly buzzing around forums like this.

Dear Ozpen,

Yet again you are fallaciously using logical fallacies to berate people. You cant' just keep making up their definitions to suit yourself.

Mr Opinion's response was a flippant remark and hardly an “attempt to refute “an argument that was not presented by that opponent”. Care to try again.

You also said “We need to see God in natural disasters, including Covid-19. What is he trying to say to rebellious Aussies who are kicking Him out of their lives?”

What a load of bunkum. You are invoking an Old Testament type of God about whom you are inventing stories to fulfil your sick blasphemous agenda.

You had also written; “When the Israelites were trying to escape Egypt (Exodus 7-11) and the wicked Pharaoh refused to let them go, God sent plagues.”

The so called 'wicked' Pharaoh was quite prepared to send the Israelis on their way but God purposefully hardened his heart so God could wreak the vengeance of slaying every firstborn across the whole of Egypt.

“Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. “

Tell me Ozpen, why did the firstborn son of every female slave have to die? What lesson was that giving?

//Faith in God is stronger then evolution, because it is observable.//

Not the most promising abstract I've ever read, but I'm sure it'll make a fascinating paper once it's properly written up and ready for peer review.

Question 1: Would it be impertinent of me to ask what methodology you employed to test the null hypothesis?

//The overuse of evolution as a buzz word in modern day theories puts evolution in a skeptical view in my opinion.//

You know that biologists didn't invent the word, yes? Chemists had claim to it before they did; in chemistry we sometimes talk about the evolution of gas in a reaction - all it means is that a gas is being produced. And we were using the word since the 18th century; biologists didn't jump on the bandwagon until the 19th century.

Question 2: Is the notion that some chemical reactions can produce chemical products now suspect, because chemists use the term 'evolution' to describe these reactions?

//Contrasted to 2) the ideas of entropy//

Would these be vague, wooly-headed, half-baked notions of entropy, or a proper discussion of the concept based on actual physics (and not what you imagine physics to be).

Question 3: What does the thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work have to do with evolution?

//This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.//

Yes, we know. It's a scientific theory, NNS. Scientific theories are silent on the question of God's existence. Or, if you prefer, they are perfectly agnostic.

Science neither affirms nor denies the existence of the supernatural, because it is limited to the natural. I can see why some religious folk interpret the agnosticism of science as being anti-religious (because if fails to affirm their particular beliefs), but I'm unsure as to why they have singled out the theory of evolution as somehow being worse than all the others. Maxwell's laws, tectonic theory, atomic theory etc. are no more or less agnostic than evolutionary theory.

//I don't give two hoots if OzSpen and NNS want to have a religious view of the world. They do that because they believe in the supernatural and not in scientific and philosophical views.//

Belief in the supernatural is a philosophical view, Mr. Onion. And not an unreasonable philosophical view. The problems start when people - either intentionally or because they just don't know any better - blur the lines betwixt metaphysics and science.

//Of course they don't want evolution to be true because it is scientific proof that there is no God the Creator//

No, it isn't. For one thing, science doesn't prove things; see the works of Karl Popper. And even if it did prove things about the natural world (which it doesn't), it can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural. Science does not concern itself with the supernatural.

Their beliefs do not bother me.

All I have pointed out is that they have a religious view of the world hence their belief in the existence of God.

I told OzSpen that I have a scientific view of the world and hence do not believe in God.

What is interesting is that they want people to believe like they do that the Wuhan Bat Soup Virus pandemic is an act of God. I pointed out that this is only true if one has a religious view of the world which explains cause and effect in terms of supernatural agency.

Why do you think I seem bothered. I'm just expressing an observation on the position of people who have a religious world view.

PS Have you noticed how OzSpen and NNS are only good at preaching the gospel. Why do you think that is?

//When the Israelites were trying to escape Egypt (Exodus 7-11) and the wicked Pharaoh refused to let them go, God sent plagues. He did it at the time of Noah by sending a world-wide flood where God caused the storm in the ocean.//

Yeah, I'm not convince these are good analogies for the pandemic. When God sent the final plague to Egypt, he told the Israelites what to do so they would be 'passed over' - because God only wanted to punish the wicked Egyptians, not the Israelites. When God sent the flood, Noah was fore-warned and given blueprints for a sweet flood-proof boat - because God only wanted to punish the wicked, not Noah and his homies.

If God has sent the pandemic as punishment for the wicked, where is the benevolent umbrella of protetction for the righteous that He unfurls in scriptures? This disease seems to strike down devout, decent Christians and non-Christians alike. Sending a pandemic which indiscriminately afflicts both the holy faithful and the godless heathens does not really seem to tally with what the scriptures say about His attitude towards 'collateral damage' when dealing out divine retribution.

Foxy,

Their beliefs do not bother me.

All I have pointed out is that they have a religious view of the world hence their belief in the existence of God.

I told OzSpen that I have a scientific view of the world and hence do not believe in God.

What is interesting is that they want people to believe like they do that the Wuhan Bat Soup Virus pandemic is an act of God. I pointed out that this is only true if one has a religious view of the world which explains cause and effect in terms of supernatural agency.

Why do you think I seem bothered. I'm just expressing an observation on the position of people who have a religious world view.

PS Have you noticed how OzSpen and NNS are only good at preaching the gospel. Why do you think that is?

Mr O,

Perhaps what you don't seem to understand is that
both OzSpen and NNS - believe in the authority of the Bible
as God's revelation to humanity and in spreading the
Christian message. They believe that the only way to
salvation is through belief in Jesus Christ.

Your views are at odds with theirs.

So why continue to argue?

Foxy,

That's exactly what I have been saying.

Why continue discussing it? Simply because it is all about searching for truth and knowledge.

Or are you suggesting I become like OzSpen and NNS and go through life being an ignorant man? I spent years qualifying as a sociologist so that I would not have to go through life as an ignorant man and I refuse to go back to square one!

On the topic of God and just out of curiosity how do you define Life? In your own words, without telling me what someone else has said.

Trump is America's main problem with COVID-19 due to Trump's leadership delay. That is Trump's inability to take expert medical advice up to March 31, 2020 that the threat was really serious. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/trump-coronavirus-statements/ dated March 31, 2020

TRUMP SAID IN 2020:

“We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” CNBC interview Jan. 22

“Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.” New Hampshire rally Feb. 10

“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. … Stock Market starting to look very good to me!” Twitter Feb. 24

“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” News conference, Feb. 27

“I think the 3.4 percent [[confirmed] fatality rate] is really a false number.” Fox News interview, March 4

“Some people will have this at a very light level and won’t even go to a doctor or hospital, and they’ll get better. There are many people like that.” Briefing with airline CEOs, March 4

“The Fake News Media and their partner, the Democrat Party, is doing everything within its semi-considerable power ... to inflame the CoronaVirus situation.” Twitter, March 9

“We’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.” March 10

“We’re using the full power of the federal government to defeat the virus, and that’s what we’ve been doing.” News conference, March 14

“This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something that we have tremendous control over.” News conference, March 15

“We have an invisible enemy.” News conference, March 16

“I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.” News conference, March 17

“I always treated the Chinese Virus very seriously, and have done a very good job from the beginning, including my very early decision to close the ‘borders’ from China - against the wishes of almost all.” Twitter, March 18

[MORE TO FOLLOW]

[FROM ABOVE]

Trump is America's main problem with COVID-19 due to Trump's leadership delay. That is Trump's inability to take expert medical advice up to March 31, 2020 that the threat was really serious. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/trump-coronavirus-statements/ dated March 31, 2020

TRUMP SAID IN 2020:

“America will again, and soon, be open for business — very soon — a lot sooner than three or four months that somebody was suggesting. ... We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.” News conference, March 23

“I’d love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter.” Fox News interview, March 24

“We’re going to have a great victory.” News conference, March 30 [Adopting the rhetoric of war!]

“I don’t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators. You know, you go into major hospitals sometimes they’ll have two ventilators, and now all of a sudden they’re saying, ‘Can we order 30,000 ventilators?’” Fox News interview, March 26

“WE WILL WIN THIS WAR. [capitalized by Trump] When we achieve this victory, we will emerge stronger and more united than ever before!”
— Twitter, March 28

“Nothing would be worse than declaring victory before the victory is won.” News conference, March 29

[On March 29, 2020] Anthony S. Fauci, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts and a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, warned that between 100,000 and 200,000 Americans could die and that millions would be infected. The president said on Sunday that the country would be doing well if it “can hold” the number of deaths “down to 100,000.”

COMMENT

Even though America has the world's most advanced, most expensive medical care more Americans have the disease and have died than in any other country. Many more Americans will die due to Trump's delays and minimisation of the COVID threat.

As at May 17, 2020 US COVID:

- CASES 1,443,397

- DEATHS 87,568.

plantagenet,

Great cut and paste. You truly are the cut and paste king of the southern hemisphere!

Hi Pete,

Hmmmm ...... You seem to have PTATS, the Pro-Truth Anti-Trump Syndrome.

Spot on !

The US has a dreadful problem - how to act effectively against this virus with a complete moron in charge (and not, when he feels like it).

I don't think we can imagine yet what the consequences of this ghastly combination are going to be.

Joe

Mr O,

We're all thrown curve balls in the form of people
and situations we are tempted to judge. How otherwise would
we grow but by growing through such challenges.

I don't have the answers to the big questions in life.
I'm still on my own road to discovery. And yes, I have
been incredibly lucky. But everything is relative, everything
has its story, and everyone has obstacles to overcome. They
are our greatest teachers.

Each of us goes through transitions and transformations.
The important thing is that we acknowledge them and learn
from them. I'm no pundit. I have only my own life
experiences to go on. And the obstacles I have overcome in
life have been, difficult. However, I've been given some
great gifts by each of the people I have encountered on
my journey through life. They've helped shape me into
the person I have become and still hope to be.

Humans are the most extraordinary creatures. My spirit is
uplifted by the encounters of the amazing souls that I've met
along the way. It's the spirit of the human being that can fill
me with more joy than anything in the world.

I hope that answers your questions.

Mr Opinion,

<<PS Have you noticed how OzSpen and NNS are only good at preaching the gospel. Why do you think that is?>>

Why must you talk in the third person about Not_Now.Soon and me when it would be courteous to address your questions or comments to us directly?

Not_Now.Soon : you seem to find it challenging to believe that some things can change from a simple state to a complex state. This is quite a common issue that many people have. Quite often they feel this way because of their misunderstanding of the concept of entropy. However, if you study physics you will realize that our theories do certainly allow this. How this works is that while it is "true" that overall entropy always increases (or to say naively that things become disordered) it is allowable for a subpart of a system loss entropy (become more ordered) as long as the rest of the system gains entropy (becomes more disordered) and that overall there is a gain.

Here's a perfect example. Snow is formed from water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour is a gas and is the most disordered state of water (there's almost no inter-molecular structure/complexity/order to a gas but rather it is just agitated random movements/collisions of molecules) but snowflakes are crystalline solid and have vastly greater order/complexity than water vapour. The reason why water can go from disordered gas to beautiful snowflakes is because when the water vapour cools to form the flakes in releases its energy (ie: heat) to the surrounding atmosphere thus heating it up and causing the atmosphere to become more disordered. This increase in the disorder in the atmosphere is greater than the increase in order of the water itself changing from gas to solid.

To Thinkabit.

I'm glad to see you're still in this conversation. For a second I thought my stance on evolution pushed you out of the conversation. Just like when someone say "enough of this," and leaves. Let me explain where I'm coming from regarding evolution and entropy.

Though entropy is only considered a law in the form of thermodynamics, the idea is still justifiable in just about any other subject matter. You don't get more order out of disorder. But instead, out of an ordered and organized structure, over time it becomes less organized, loses it's structure and moves to a type of disorder (comparatively speaking to how it was before).

With evolution, though there are observations of changes in species that get passed down from one generation to the next, the idea is that through diversity the strongest attributes survive. In this way I've compared evolution to a farmer breeding a crop with certain qualities he wants to keep, or a cattle breeder doing the same thing with his cattle.

These two theories work well enough in modern times but they both fall apart when they are theorized to the point of how the earth began and how life started on it. At that point neither theory is within is scope of reference. Yet in evolution, many people pose the theory to outside it's scope, to both where life began and even to the idea of one species (single cell led organisms) being the great great great... grandfather of any of the modern species that are multicellular, multi tissue (a tissue in anatomy is a group of one type of cell), and even multi-organ creatures with vastly different types of cells in it.

(Continued)

(Continued)

With the observations of entropy as they usually apply, if life sparked in the chaotic world that it would start from, there's no reason to think that it would survive to a point of a few generations. Yet here we are. In the face of viruses, hostile and extreme conditions that would decrease the chance of life surviving, and any number of factors that would cause a life form to breakdown and die; in the face of all of this life is discovered in just about every environment we've come across and had the resources to study it. Even in the extreme environments of the cold in glaciers, and the environments of great heat near thermal volcanic vents at the ocean's floor.

Life as it would seem just finds a way. Unless you look past earth and into space. Then the diversity and the amount of life drops to a dramatic zero amount discovered.

By the first observation that we are here, it stretches the conclusions of how life started, and was maintained. Even more so though is the idea that life doesn't just go away, but instead that it gets more complex. This is the part of evolution that I don't think will be discovered in a lab or within one person's lifetime. It's the untestable, unobservable part of evolution.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Move past that point of complexity back around to the idea of entropy once more though, and the scope of how well the world fits together is bewildering. Hence my examples of anatomy that your knee works the way it does or that your skin both protects you and helps keep your body temperature the same regardless of the outside temperature around you (within a certain range of temperatures at least). Or amazing and bewildering that similar forms of complexity and engineering in other species. Even to the point of ecosystems seem to be in a state of well balanced systems instead of growing states of entropy should be something to marvel at.

All of this can point to, and hint at the reality that God exists, and is not only the clock maker of the world that set the wheels in motion, but must also be a constant sustainer of the world from not falling apart and becoming a lifeless rock circling our sun.

I hope this makes more sense, and answers where I'm coming from on that aspect. There's more out there though for evidence that God is real, and I gave some of those things in the same set of posts where I tried to explain to Opinion, that if all you do is look for God, I'm sure you'll find Him.

For reference that was way back here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20871#368539

And the next post here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20871#368540

OzSpen,

You just asked me: "Why must you talk in the third person about Not_Now.Soon and me when it would be courteous to address your questions or comments to us directly?"

Ahhhh, yes ............ Well that is because I was talking to someone about you.

Would you like to engage in a debate with me on the religious view versus the scientific view? How about we pick a topic say LIFE which you believe God created and I believe is a product of the building blocks of our Universe viz atoms.

I think you should go first. What is LIFE?

To OzSpen.

Opinion states:

<<Ahhhh, yes ............ Well that is because I was talking to someone about you.>>

But regarding why he didn't just be courteous and speak directly to either you or me. I have an easy explanation that is easily observed in any conversation he's in.

He's a dick. Plain and simple. Wash your hands of him now or latter, either way eventually that's all he is is someone to wash up from after dealing with.

To Opinion.

Your attitude and your behavior are all that it is that make you this way. Change your behavior and you won't be thought of as the troll pretty universally on OLO. Or you know, be civil as I'm sure there was some kind of discussion and study on in any study of sociology (which you claim to have studied).

Back to topic (any topic or subtopic so far), why don't you give your version of what life is, or give some contributing substance to the conversation. Add to the topics and subject matter discussed instead of only trying to poke at other people.

You know, as a general rule, stop being a dick.

Mr Opinion,

<<I think you should go first. What is LIFE?>>

The content of this thread is about the good God allowing or causing Covid-19. So I don't plan on dealing with your manufactured topic.

If you want to understand how my Christian world view obtains information about disasters such as the tsunami of 2004 or Covid-19, I'm available for a discussion.

However, if you sling logical fallacies at me, I will not pursue the dialogue. Logical fallacies prevent logical discussions.

In your discussions with those of us with a different world view, you have acted like a self-centred narcissist whose only concern is for you and your supreme view of science and the universe, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=act%20like%20a%20dick

You seem to have forgotten the fact that your use of fallacies - erroneous reasoning - undermines the credibility of your arguments. If you use fallacious arguments (as you've done many times on this and other threads), you are not writing as a good logical and critical thinker.

I ask you to step up to the mark of being a good, logical thinker by throwing away your flaws in reasoning.

Dear Ozpen,

You write;

“However, if you sling logical fallacies at me, I will not pursue the dialogue. Logical fallacies prevent logical discussions.”

“You seem to have forgotten the fact that your use of fallacies - erroneous reasoning - undermines the credibility of your arguments. If you use fallacious arguments (as you've done many times on this and other threads), you are not writing as a good logical and critical thinker. I ask you to step up to the mark of being a good, logical thinker by throwing away your flaws in reasoning.”

For God's sake mate, cut the crap. You have repeatedly demonstrated a singular lack of appreciation for the proper identification of what constitutes a logical fallacy, yet here you are flouting your ignorance and filling half your post drivel.

Mr Opinion may well indulge in the odd logical fallacy as we all do, but your own use of them combined with your incomplete understanding of when to call out others is making a farce of the whole bloomin lot.

In fact there really should be another logical fallacy, one that describes the fallacious use of charges of logical fallacies to mask deficiencies in one's arguments.

Give it a rest.

//You don't get more order out of disorder.//

Yes, you do. As thinkabit pointed out in his example of atmospheric precipitation, spontaneous processes that involve a decrease in entropy can and do occur in nature. Constantly, because its always raining somewhere on Earth. And indeed on other planets/moons - it rains methane on Titan, the largest moon of Saturn.

These entropy decreasing processes are permitted so long as the process involve a decrease in the Gibbs free energy, which is derived from both the enthalpy and the entropy of the process. If the enthalpy is negative - i.e. if it is an exothermic process, e.g. phase changes from gas to liquid to solid, numerous chemical reactions - the entropy can decrease.

//These two theories work well enough in modern times but they both fall apart when they are theorized to the point of how the earth began//

Not really... the theory of evolution does not apply to the formation of the Earth because it's a planet rather than a lifeform.

Because it's a planet, it's bloody massive and get a proper grip on things with such large gravitational fields you need to apply general relativity.As far as I'm aware, the laws of thermodynamics are not considered inconsistent with general relativity. If they are, physicists are keeping very quiet about it, which would be odd because a) they generally make such a fuss about their theories being inconsistent; see general relativity and quantum mechanics and b) overturning the second law would open the door to the theoretical possibility of over-unity devices. Who doesn't want an over-unity deivce?

//Yet in evolution, many people pose the theory to outside it's scope, to both where life began//

Yep, it's a common mistake to confuse the theory of evolution with theories of abiogenesis. They aren't the same thing. But erroneously conflating the theories does not falsify them.

//With the observations of entropy as they usually apply, if life sparked in the chaotic world that it would start from, there's no reason to think that it would survive to a point of a few generations.//

There's no reason to think it wouldn't if the processes that allow it are thermodynamically favourable.

// Unless you look past earth and into space. Then the diversity and the amount of life drops to a dramatic zero amount discovered.//

Space isn't very hospitable to life, NNS. It's bloody cold and a vacuum. Planets and moons are where you'd expect to find life. And the number of planets we've looked vs. the total number of planets just in our galaxy alone is approximately three-fifths of bugger all.

//In fact there really should be another logical fallacy, one that describes the fallacious use of charges of logical fallacies to mask deficiencies in one's arguments.//

I don't know if that is an informal fallacy that's been given a name yet, although I wouldn't be surprised.

But his claim that "Logical fallacies prevent logical discussions" commits the Fallacy fallacy:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

If he wants to up his critical thinking game, I'd advise him to tone down his excessive focus on people's fallacies and focus instead on the subject of their arguments. But hey, what do I know?

SteeleRedux,

<<For God's sake mate, cut the crap.>>

There you go again with another Ad Hominem (Abusive) logical fallacy, http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

Why don't you quit your logical fallacies so we can have a reasonable discussion on the good God and disasters? Are you capable of that? If so, please demonstrate it in your language.

<<For God's sake>>

So you believe in the God you have blasphemed?

Toni L,

<<But his claim that "Logical fallacies prevent logical discussions" commits the Fallacy fallacy:>>

I agree that there can be legitimate content / truth in logical fallacies. However, the whole import of a fallacy is that is erroneous reasoning.

OzSpen and NNS,

I see you are trying to avoid a debate on the topic I raised.

If you don't feel confident about putting forward an argument then I'm not one to pressure you other than to say I accept your acquiescence.

So I suggest you both pick up your banners and go back to standing on the street corner crying out "Converts! Converts! God needs converts! Sign up for salvation!"

Dear Ozpen,

It seems you can't help yourself.

Again how is me attacking your ARGUMENTS rather than attacking you PERSONALLY using ad hominem?

This is the direct description from your link;

“Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself”

Why is this so hard for you? I attacked your arguments and clearly and repeatedly spelt out why they were crap.

As to being blasphemous good God man look at what you are arguing. You are basically giving God a causative role in the Corona Virus in Australia.

From you; “We need to see God in natural disasters, including Covid-19. What is he trying to say to rebellious Aussies who are kicking Him out of their lives?”

which actually begs the question; why are we so less impacted when as a nation we are far more irreligious than the deeply religious countries like the US, Spain, and Italy? What is your version of God sending a message about there?

For you to evoke God's name because you wanted to attack those who are leaving your faith, or those who supported gay marriage for instance is the height of sacrilege, of taking his name in vain. You are treating it as a plaything for your own agendas. Inexcusable I'm afraid and plainly blasphemous.

In the words of a former PM I will not be lectured on blasphemy by this man.

//In your discussions with those of us with a different world view, you have acted like a self-centred narcissist whose only concern is for you and your supreme view of science and the universe, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=act%20like%20a%20dick//

Sorry, what was that you were saying about abusive ad hominems? Because I'm pretty sure that resorting to calling people dicks via hyperlink comes under that heading.

Your criticisms of Mr Opinion contain a fallacy, ergo your reasoning is erroneous and on that grounds we must reject your conclusion that Mr Opinion is 'not writing as a good logical and critical thinker'.

Toni Lavis,

I would actually like to discuss the topic LIFE with OzSpen because I'm interested to see haw LIFE is perceived by someone with a religious view of the world.

In fact I will make the first move by saying I see LIFE as a water-based feeder.

Over to you OzSpen.

.

To all and sundry,

.

For those who consider that the concept of a god is simply a figment of the imagination, it is evident that neither a “good” nor a “bad” god could possibly have “allowed” the COVID-19.

By the same token, it is understandable that those who are persuaded there really is such a god (“good” or “bad”), nothing could possibly exist in the universe unless it was created by the particular god of their imagination.

The former explain the sudden emergence of COVID-19 as the result of what the French biologist, Jacques Monod, called “chance and necessity” (where “chance is a “random variable” and “necessity” an “inevitable event”).

Whereas, the latter resign themselves to their fate because it is what they consider to be their “god’s will”.

The operatives of the virus, of course, are the same, in both cases.

Here is one possible explanation :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=TPpoJGYlW54

.

SteeleRedux,

<<By its very definition Ad Homenim (sic) is an attack on the PERSON not the ARGUMENT. I directly spoke to NNS's argument calling it twaddle and then explicitly stating the reasons why.>>

That's only one kind of Ad Hominem fallacy, Ad Hominem (Abusive), http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusive. You attacked NNS by calling her argument 'twoddle'. Instead of dealing with her argument/reasoning you attacked the person with a word that was completely irrelevant to the argument NNS was making.

There are also:

+ Ad Hominem (Circumstantial), http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial. You regularly use this one against me by claiming my argument is biased or predisposed to take a particular Christian stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid. The is illogical reasoning.

+ Ad Hominem (Guilt by association), http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association. You do this to me when you the view my statements negatively because of their association with another group (Christianity) that you also view negatively.

+ Ad Hominem (Tu Quoque), http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque. This claims the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

.

To all and sundry,

.

A coalition of 62 countries backs joint Australian, EU push for an independent inquiry into “why the good God allows COVID-19 …

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-17/coronavirus-inquiry-world-health-assembly-china-covid-19/12256910

.

Banjo Paterson,

The news this morning has said that China has agreed to the proposed investigation but only after the coronavirus has been brought under control.

I assume that means that investigators will be able to carry out their investigations inside China after the Chinese government has got rid of all of the evidence that China is responsible for the global pandemic.

Mr Opinion,

<<I see you are trying to avoid a debate on the topic I raised. If you don't feel confident about putting forward an argument then I'm not one to pressure you other than to say I accept your acquiescence.>>

STRAW MAN Fallacy

To Toni Lavis,

I haven't seen you on OLO for a while, now. I'm glad to see you're ok and still around. Sorry for how things ended last time I saw you here. Hoping for a fresh start.

As for entropy, you likely studied the topic in a great deal, and know it better then I do. However, it does seem off to say disorder turning into order is included and acknowledged in the theory. I don't disagree that this happens like the example of snow firming out of cold and crystallization of water. But I find it at odds that these things are included in the theory. If I'm wrong about it, then I'm wrong about it, but I figured like some theories have only a limited scope for the theory (such as a subject matter, or under a certain range of temperatures or other factors), and outside of that most theories let it go. Therefore if there is something within the theory of entropy that acknowledges and allows an explanation for order out of disorder, I'm all ears.

That said I don't think the starting or continuation of life on earth can be sold as a universal equation on positive and negative entropic energy. I think it has to be a bit more local then disorder on another planet allows complex life to begin on earth. Hoping you or thinkabit, can say how it's possible with such a large vacuums of space between earth and any other place to collect the positive entropy displacement.

To Banjo Paterson.

I don't know anyone who is resigning to the fate of the corona virus, because it's God's will. Though perhaps you know people that I don't with this stance

To OzSpen

Have to correct you on this now if I can. I'm a guy not a gal. On another point though, I know how much logical fallacies bug you. But some of them might just be part of how people reason. Several people use mismanaged logic all the time here on OLO, but I doubt it's on purpose ( at least not all the time). As for SR, don't worry about it. He showed his stance on twiddle meaning foolish. After thinking about it I've come to the conclusion that the conversation between him and I is really foolish. Continuing in the same direction that started as a criticism would be a foolish path. Time to move on and learn that this is the conversation tree when Steele hears criticism, correction, or is just disagreed with. No point in dwelling on it and feeding that side conversation more fuel.

To Opinion.

If the topic is approved, then there should be a spot in the general section asking about what life is. Hopefully I can give you my opinion of that there tomorrow, if you are still interested in an answer or even a debate. I'm actually really glad to see you contribute to that question yourself so that your answer is out on the floor also. Do that more often instead of trying to speak for others and my opinion of you might change.