Then exposing the flaw in the inference won't be a problem, so I look forward to the education. By His revelation, of course. Through the God given faculty of insight. Not what but Who; and He is the Creator of all good things. That's the last place in the universe anyone would come across that knowledge - which is why it's a sanctuary for God haters.
In order to assert that a creator created the universe, you would need to prove the existence of this creator before you can assert it created the universe.
Ah, well.. i guess the Narrative is what matters. Have it your way. 'Creationism is religion!' 'Atheism is science!' There. It is fitting, then, that any model that includes an Intelligent Designer can only be discussed in a philosophical forum, and any model that includes atheistic naturalism should only be discussed in a science forum. That fit the narrative better? Christians are just religious, and are incapable of scientific analysis, while atheists have no religio/philosophical beliefs, and only have science. The Narrative, after all, is the only thing that matters. Truth and Reason must be subjugated beneath the Narrative, to keep the propaganda drums pounding in rhythm. I will point out, in passing, that nobody has even attempted to present the atheistic model of origins.. complete with evidence to support the basic assumptions. All we have here is outrage and bigotry, as the 'argument' for atheistic naturalism...and now censorship. I hope the True Believers are happy. Ancient dates are believed and asserted, ignoring the problems that have been presented. Common Ancestry is believed and asserted, with no empirical evidence. The big bang is believed and asserted, with tons of flaws, unbased assumptions, and suspension of all natural laws for convenience. This is just progressive Indoctrination. You believe these things, because you have been indoctrinated since infancy to believe these things. Everywhere you look, the drum is pounded for atheistic naturalism! Schools, movies, parks, nature shows, Public television and radio.. forums. Media. Churches. Everywhere. But it is a lie. A delusion foisted upon you for a religious agenda. It is not science. It is not even good philosophy or logic. It is smoke and mirrors, hiding behind a pretense of science and elitism.
Why don't you just claim that god created the universe last Saturday and all memories were placed at the same time as was everything else in the univese?
What do you mean why? If you assert a creator god created everything, you have to first establish this creator god exists.
There is clear evidence that humans built Stonehenge, including evidence that humans existed at the time it was built. From there, people began investigating how and why - since humans have forgotten. Progress has been made on that, and there is every reason to believe that further progress is possible. Saying "god did it"doesn't answer any question. Worse yet, it is the end of investigation. Why would anyone investigate further when it's believed that "god did it"? Anyone can give "god did it" as the answer to ANY question - making it not particularly interesting as an answer, especialy when the very existence of this god is in question.
What flaw in the inference? Other than your assumptions about what I said, the only inference should be that theories like the big bang or evolution do not require a god to explain them, nor do they dismiss the idea of a god. I've stressed this several times--the science and the religion are not in opposition. We can keep the idea of a creator completely separate. Now, the next thing is how you can postulate your beliefs as anything more than a belief. I asked how you know something is approved by god. You say: How can I be sure this revelation is not just someone's assumption? How can it be more than an assumption? How does that rise above the level of reading tarot cards? And you said: What is insight? If you believe in the Judeo-Christian god, are you not going to interpret things through that filter? Doesn't that allow you to assume you are correct? What if you assumed incorrectly? What if what you consider a revelation is different from what someone else considers to be the revelation? Which of you has correctly understood the revelation? By referring to that god as "Who" and "He," you assign human characteristics to that god. Why does it have to be a being (who)? Why does that god need to be male? What reason is there for a god to have gender? All of this suggests that we can't conceive of a god in any other way, which suggests a serious limit to our intellect. "You shall not make any graven images or likeness of God." What does that mean? Don't draw pictures or carve wood and stone? Is it possible that people misunderstood this and that it actually meant that we can't represent this god using a human likeness because there is no human likeness? Again, every answer begs a question: What actually is the imagination? And why do you assume it's a sanctuary for god haters? I don't deny the existence of a creator or even of this god you talk about. I only ask questions that have bothered me for most of my life. I don't accept the dogmatic belief system, especially one that is so flawed that pretends to have answers, yet cannot answer in any other way than to paint likenesses of our thoughts that rise up from our imaginations.
Apparently we do, or believe we do. There is no way to prove the existence of a god, and therefore no way to know what this god thinks or does. All we can do is try to explain our beliefs the only way we know how. We make our god a perfect or a flawed god. We assign that god's motivations, qualities, looks, actions, words, and expectations for us using our imaginations, because all we can do is imagine (in the purest form of the word).
Even if we say the Earth is not 4.5 Billion years old - it is demonstrable fact that the earth is much older than 10K. Ice cores for example go back hundreds of thousands of years +/- a few percent. The layers are counted the same as tree rings. The same is true of coral reefs - Scientists can tell you what the temperature of the water was hundreds of thousands of years ago.
The flaw that must exist to justify your claim that I'm "not even close". And the logical basis for so limiting the permissible inferences to that alone is...? Well how very handsome. That being the case... ...why exactly is this necessary or desirable? When what I believe is also what I know, I'd say the question answers itself. Wouldn't you? If you are the recipient of the revelation, again the question answers itself. God is not a filter, He is the Light, and our insight is the receiver. False dilemma - think of the blind men and the elephant. More accurately, I acknowledge in Him attributes also possessed by humans. How in Hell could a Creator be anything else? Not male but masculine, as a feminine god could only nurture the egotistical side of the human psyche. Which might be interesting, if a god who could be conceptualized could benefit humankind. Lol, stop the presses...but it only accentuates the fact that God is way too big to fit inside anybody's pea brain. It means making a hard copy of any putative likeness of God your imagination may provide - which you shouldn't be entertaining to begin with - will lead to worship of the image and therefore alienation from God. A component of the human mind, like the intellect; and either may serve as a refuge from the present moment... ...which is where God reveals as much of Himself as the soul is able to bear. lol How confidently you speak on others' behalf. Non sequitur, obviously, since it is quite possible to know what one cannot prove to be true.
The problem with Epicurus' logic is that it's loaded with some unstated assertions, and formulated with tunnel vision. Particular assertions that have significant influence need to be made in order to even begin to approach it logically. Some problematic assertions & issues that are implicated: * God is anthropomorphic and has a male/male-like gender. * God is separate from its creations. The possibility of Oneness is ignored. * Evil is an aberration, and an experience/phenomenon that has no merit, and offers no benefit or developmental value to a human or to God. * Some basis/hypothesis for the origin of what we call 'evil' is absent. * Reincarnation is ignored. No mention of the possibility of reincarnation (ie, growth/evolution of spirit). * The term 'evil' is not contextualized or specifically defined. What is viewed as evil/good to one person may be good/evil to another. Addressing each one: * No. 1: If God is all-powerful, then an absence/lack of power must also exist. Otherwise, neither can exist. As such, this would mean God can never be either all-power or all-powerless. (This disqualifies No. 1) * No. 2: If God is all-good, then evil must also exist. Otherwise, neither can exist. As such, this would mean God can never be either all-good or all-evil. (This disqualifies No. 2) * No. 3: This is a contradiction. If evil exists (as is established here), then God cannot be BOTH willing AND able to prevent evil. For evil to exist, God would have to be EITHER willing BUT unable, OR able BUT unwilling. (No. 3 disqualifies itself).
Your model of origins is based on one unproved premise (existence of a creator) and one 21 years old scientific article limited to an extremely narrow aspect (heteroplasmy) in one field of science. It completely ignores prior and ulterior research in the same field - for instance, mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first modern (anatomically speaking) woman, but the only modern woman whose descendants survived long enough to argue about her age - and the implications thereof - on a forum. https://www.livescience.com/10015-age-confirmed-eve-mother-humans.html Not all estimates of the age of modern humans are based on the mDNA mutation rate. The human remains associated with the Middle Stone Age site of Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, had been dated using thermoluminescence dating of fire-heated flint artefacts found on the site. Still about 200,000 years old. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.546..293R/abstract Odd that you mention atheistic naturalism, which is a philosophical theory, then make a u-turn and declare atheists aphilosophical. So...do atheists have philosophical beliefs, or not? Naturalism has no ontological preference. There's a theistic naturalism as well. Of course atheists have no religious beliefs. That's why we're called "atheists". At least some of us have philosophical beliefs though. Some atheists have religious-like dogmatic beliefs - adherents of totalitarian far left or far right ideologies, or just the very principled. Since science, as it has been explained to you countless times, deals only with the natural, a supernatural god has no business in a science forum. If your only goal was to challenge the traditional narrative about the age of modern humans, you could have done that without mentioning a supernatural creator. There's no such thing as " the atheistic model of origins", which explains why nobody has even attempted to present it. There are scientific theories. I linked some above. Postulating the existence of a supernatural god who can manipulate matter and spirit at will certainly qualifies as "suspension of all natural laws", but let's not dwell on such a trivial detail. Since we don't have complete knowledge, nobody can realistically expect that all natural laws are known to humans. Therefore nobody can claim that one scientific theory or another would lead to suspension of all natural laws. At most, one can claim that one scientific theory or another would lead to the invalidation of some known natural laws in certain circumstances (think Einstein's relativity vs Newton). There's plenty of evidence for common ancestry: https://www.khanacademy.org/science...l-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution Are you saying that every practical application of scientific discoveries is an illusion?
Regarding the bolded colored part of your post, I have my own theory. The Hebrews were members of different tribes, with different gods, foundational myths and beliefs. The interdiction might have been an attempt at homogenizing and unifying the tribes by slowly merging the different tribal deities into one national god. A faceless, unseen, powerful god, could have been identified by each tribe with their own principal deity, averting religious wars and sectarian strife.
Always a pleasure when a theist blames their "creator" for EVERYTHING that is wrong in his "creation". That LONG list INCLUDES bloodthirsty warmongers, serial killers, childhood cancers, famines, natural disasters, epidemics and yes, EVIL too. The OP's "creator" MUST have "created" Satan, demons, evil spirits and everything else that plagues mankind. Got to wonder why the OP decided to omit this NEGATIVE aspect of his "model of origins"? Is it because when the OP "met the creator" he forgot to ask him WHY he ABORTS at least 25% of all "unborn babies" just because he can and he wants to make the lives of women trying to become pregnant more difficult? Perhaps the OP forgot to ask his "creator" why he trapped mankind on a small planet in a shooting gallery of meteorites that could obliterate all of us at any point in time? What was the point of "creating" all of this "life" if it was just going to be wiped out randomly? Did the OP ask his "creator" about why he mentions unicorns in his "word of god" but forgot to actually "create" any of them? Was that a flaw in his "creator's" "model of origins"? So many pertinent questions that the OP failed to ask and yet the OP is confidently claiming to be a Subject Matter Expert when it comes to the "model of origins". Surely the "reasoning and methodology" cannot be complete without any of the answers to all of the above questions. Needless to say none of those questions will be addressed by the OP with actual answers and will instead be brushed off just like they are in EVERY OTHER similar thread like this one that the OP "creates".
I can accept that idea. I also think it might have something to do with trying to prevent what Christianity has become with all it's Euro-Jesus paintings, crosses, rituals, etc., which deflects thought away from any kind of real spirituality.
My belief is that everyone is free to interpret that unexplained sense of spirituality found in all human cultures. The great failing is when we try to bring such an abstraction to life with human characteristics and market it to the masses. Also, an article linked earlier to explain the issues with the mdna was actually a good read. I'm all about challenging accepted theories and science. The article, however, went on to say that this model of ancestry that questions the dates and dating methods is one that almost no scientists accepted.
There is no flaw. God is seen as perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent, so for that god to create something as flawed as humans in order to weed out the bad ones simply makes no sense. If a god is not perfect, it is flawed. You can neither prove nor disprove that god exists or that it is or isn't perfect. Therefore, any qualities you assign or don't assign are part of your belief system. Your assumption previously--the one that was not even close--was a misinterpretation of what I said. Mocking? Mostly because the OP mixed the two ideas along with the suggestion that the two can't be discussed independently. No, I would be clear that it's my belief and that I could in no way prove by belief. Then it is your belief and unless you were given some special powers, yours alone. Again, you misinterpret. What I asked was if you were going to filter your concept of a god through that filter. It's not a false dilemma, it the acknowledgment that humans are prone to misunderstanding. If you believe that didn't happen to you, fine. But you have to accept that the experience is yours and yours alone. Do you not see the how the underlined and bolded parts contradict each other? If God is too big to fit in anybody's pea brain, then how is it we can describe "him"? We're essentially going in circles here. Thanks for the discussion. Ad, out.[/quote]
I find it more credible than the "Hi I slept in the "theory of Darwinism indoctrination center" last night!
I don't understand the rebuttal. How can you conclude that an absence/lack of power must also exist if God is all-powerful? Couldn't an all-powerful God exist if nothing else existed (prior to the creation of the universe)? Hoe does the existence of something in the universe that lacks power lead one to conclude that God cannot be all-powerful? Why cannot there simultaneously exist an all-powerful God and humans with limited power? I don't see the contradiction. If God is all-good then why must evil exist? I don't understand that logic. Can't you envision a world without evil ( great human and animal suffering) and the existence of a God that is good. The logic used by Epicurus does not assume an anthropomorphic God with a male gender. I don't understand why it makes any difference if God is separate or not from its creations. It is not even clear what this means or what "Oneness" means. Evil may have merit but would a good God allow humans to suffer to the extent than they have throughout history (e.g. 50% of humans in many urban areas were killed by the bubonic plague during the Middle Ages). I don't like the term "evil" and I would prefer to use human suffering caused by natural disasters, disease, wars, or oppressive governments There is no evidence for reincarnation but if it does exist we still have the problem of human suffering. I define evil as great human suffering. It could also include the suffering of other animals. Your entire argumant just seems like a lot of hand waving and sophistry.
