Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[For_The_Kingdom]

It's strange, this dichotomy between beliefs and evidences. The theist believes supernatural things without having the evidence to show for it, but does not believe abiogenesis or evolution, despite the myriad tons of evidence in support of it.

LOL.

Where's the evidence to show that animals were created in their current form? Can we see new creatures being created, as in, observe it happening?

I dont know...but what I do know is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. That is what we do see. Anything contrary to this, I haven't seen it yet.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 427 by For_The_Kingdom]

First off, the statement "life cannot arise from non-life" is an accurate statement, point blank, period. I am only stating the facts.

How is the statement accurate, when you have JUST agreed with me that life is made up of non-life?

I am talking about specifically consciousness...conscious life.

Then please, be as accurate as possible. Instead of saying 'life cannot arise from non-life', say something like 'conscious life cannot arise from unconscious life, or non-life in general'.

For the longest time, in my eyes, you honestly sounded like you consider only things that have consciousness to be alive, which is where the disagreement between you and I comes from.

The sperm was "living"..the cells were "living"...and while those things weren't "sentient", the humans that they came from were...so regardless, you start with sentience (parents), and you send with sentience (me).

See! You keep on jumping ahead to talking about sentience, almost as if the existence of non-sentient life doesn't merit a blip on your mental radar.

What about non-sentient animals or life-forms? Like say a snail? You agreed that a tree is living, so what about a snail? When a snail procreates with another snail, we have life forming, but not sentience.

But if my question/contention is that sentient life cant come from non-sentient material, why are you talking about other stuff?

Because in your reasoning, you are, to put it as mildly as I can, sloppy. You say 'life cannot arise from non-life', and make no distinction between life that is sentient, and life that is non-sentient.
Given that you never made the distinction, I had to approach it as you saying that ALL life (whether sentient or not) HAS to come from other life.

Since you now agree with me that
1) Humans are living things
2) Humans are ultimately made up of non-living particles,
can you outline what this does to your statement of "life cannot arise from non-life"?

First off, my contention is that IF objective morality is true, then it can only stem from a necessarily existing moral agent who does not owe its existence to anything beyond itself.

Justify this belief. I don't see the connection between the If and then parts of the statement.

Nope. It isn't that God told the spirits to "go out and deceive"...It could be that God allowed spirits that he knew were going to deceive, to deceive. Big difference.

What difference? According to Thesallonians, we have some humans believing things that are false, because of what spirits say or do to them. Whether God directly sends the spirits out or merely looses them, doesn't make much of a difference.
Examine the following scene from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets please.
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]
Is Professor Lockhart, (the guy who opens the cage) at fault for the havoc that the pixies cause in the classroom? Notice that at no point does he tell the pixies to "go out and cause havoc".

Um, the example I gave was of a lion killing a member of another pride. That doesn't have a dang thing to do with prey.

It prevents Lion B from eating what Lion A wants to eat, thus ensuring Lion A's survival and gives Lion A a better chance to mate with females and have progeny.

Well, the Crip's member made the decision that he thought was best for his survival. Because after all, a dead Bloods member won't be around to kill him any longer, would he? Sounds like a good decision to me.

Is this anything at all like the same reasoning God does when or if he decides to kill?

But if objective moral values doesn't exist then it doesn't really matter, does it?

Do you hear about me going out raping and murdering?

So your standards are best for no one besides...you, correct? Well, that is you, and your standard is not one of objectivity.

Note that I have NEVER stated that whatever moral standards I hold to are objective (i.e. for everyone and everything). Have you? I would think you have, given that you say your moral standard is God, who apparently is for everyone.

Yes, I can say to you that honestly, I am at liberty to question a moral judgement I believe God has made.

Really? So tell me how many times has God failed or lost when it comes to your evaluations of a moral judgement? Please describe to me where in your system of moral evaluation it is even possible for God to fail? Are there lines, or actions, that once crossed, God goes from being 'moral' to 'immoral'?
In my reading of what you write about God and morality, I honestly don't see where it's possible for God to fail. Much like the MOA, what you write gives God an automatic pass i.e. it's rigged.

Depends, I need to know the objective standard first.

Once you declare God to BE this objective standard, how is it God can fail?

That also depends...whose to say that sexual abuse is wrong?

Narrows eyes Need I remind you of what happened to my sisters?

Your contention of "I don't know the reason, therefore, there is no reason" is fallacious.

I am not saying that. I am saying
"I don't know the reason, others are contending there is a reason, but are not elaborating on it or giving details about it. Therefore, I operate as if there is no reason to do so, until or if a reason to do so comes to my attention that is satisfactory".

I have reasons to believe that I worship a fair God,

In the morality you describe, you are unable to delineate what is fair compared to unfair.

That is your opinion. I still need to know how is the standard that you are judging God, how is that the correct standard? What makes its truth value, true?

I do not make the claim that my standard is 100% the correct standard. It is the best that I am able to come up with and I am willing to stand behind it.
I do not subscribe to some other being though as though that being IS morality in and of itself. In my eyes, to do so is to abdicate responsibility for moral judgements.

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, I could either believe that "that humanity is just so guilty of some nebulous sin committed by proto-ancestors, a sin so bad that a god man has to get nailed to a piece of wood in order to pay for it"

or, I can believe that..

"13.7 billion years ago, the universe began to exist from literally nothing, and began to expand..and with this expansion came the rise of space, time, matter, and energy. And for some reason unbeknown to mankind, this dead matter that was floating around in preexisting space began to come to life..and not only did it come to life, but it began to think, see, listen, eat, and have sex."

I like the first one better.

Notice the difference between the two statements. One is a theological statement that describes a moral or legal position, whereas the other statement makes no mention of a moral or legal position.
You make it out as if the two statements are in direct conflict with one another. Roman Catholics generally tend to believe both statements.

LOL. There was no need according to who? You?

LOL. There was a need according to who? You?
You consistently try and describe other humans (like myself) as if the mere fact we're humans who do not know everything means our own answers and responses are unsatisfactory...almost as though you yourself do not 'suffer' from this same problem.

How is it that the following

A finite human being with limited knowledge and presence, who can barely see the beginning/end of the day, let alone the beginning/ending of the world? Sure, you have all of the answers.

does NOT describe yourself as well?

By "better", I mean that whatever God orchestrates, it is to accomplish his will, and his will is for the better.

Circular reasoning. Better = whatever God wills, and whatever God wills = better.

So if God chooses to slap the shiznit out of me, it is for the better. If God chooses to have me stumble across a suitcase full of money, it is for the better.

So God cannot fail whenever (or if) you make a moral evaluation of him. Whatever he does is moral by sheer definition, no matter how harmful or beneficial the act is.

I know, too much Christian theology for your naturalistic eyes to feast upon, right?

Nope, basic stuff that I learned in my tweens.

If it does exist, then it can only be founded by a personal moral agent (lawgiver).

Show this statement to be true. I don't agree with that. This doesn't mean I think it to be false, just that at this moment in time, it has not been shown to be true.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 428 by For_The_Kingdom]

We have no good, adequate evidence that life came from nonliving material.

Readers, please note that this response from FtK to Clownboat comes AFTER his response to myself, where he agrees that humans are physical animals, whose ultimate physical makeup is that of non-living elementary particles such as oxygen and hydrogen.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 428 by For_The_Kingdom]

My point is simple; the only way for verbal speech to ever get off the ground is for humans to start with a common language. If you speak Chinese, yet you can't speak or understand a lick of Arabic...and you meet an Arab man who speaks Arabic and can't speak a lick of Chinese, and you and the Arab man are the only people in the world, do you ever think you both will get to a point where you will share a "common" language?

No. It aint happening.

Explain please how European sailors in the 1400s/1500s/1600s learned to communicate with the Chinese or Japanese, or the Maori in New Zealand?
There would not have been a common language between the two groups. According to what you say here, it should have been impossible for European settlers to communicate with the Maori.

When you find a fossil and you determine anything besides "hmmm, this once living organism has been dead a long time", you are allowing your presuppositions to interpret the evidence for you.

Readers, please note here that FtK implies strongly that his opponents have a problem with presuppositions but that he himself does not.

[Clownboat]

As far as how life originally started, we have theories on that, but if anyone claims to know, they are lying from my experience. Do you 'know' how life first started?

Sure. Gen 1:26-27.

Let it be known that FortheKingdom accepts as truth what ignorant desert nomads without written language claimed about a god/gods.
FtK, I find your mechanism for claiming to have 'truth' to be very wanting.

Please learn the difference between the big bang and evolution. Evolution is the process for changes in life. Life has had near infinite attempts for billions of years. What a big bang has to do with evolution is lost on me. Can you explain?

The Big Bang is impossible on naturalism. And without the Big Bang, there is no life...and if there is no life, there is no evolution. Catch my drift?

Again, the Big Bang and evolution are not the same thing. The universe could have been created by a god of sorts for all I know, evolution came after. Please try to grasp this.

I thought the analogy that I gave, you know, the one that you just skipped over in order to make the above statement..was accurate...and if you feel it wasn't accurate, please explain why.

What was your analogy and what does it have to do with the fact that you claim order cannot come from chaos even though you have been show exactly how it can with a repeatable experiment that you can do on your own.
You claimed that order cannot come from chaos. You were wrong. The only thing left to be determined is if you will amend your thinking or stick your head in the sand.

Notice readers how theists go on complaining about evolution or the big bang when their argument is lost. He was provided an example of order from chaos, he cannot seem to address this, nor amend his thinking, but he sure can complain about evolution.

SMH.

Please learn to debate. Shaking your head only tells us that you cannot refute a point. Believe me, I already knew you couldn't refute it, so shake your head until your brains fall out for all I care.

Wait a minute, so you don't take the position that Mother Nature is the source of everything that exists?

Correct. I don't claim to know the source of all that exists. That seems unknowable and I'll leave it to the religious to pretend that they know without being able to show that they speak the truth.

Mother Nature = natural occurrences. SMH.

Talk about shaking your head! Why do you use 'Mother Nature' when you actually mean natural occurrences? Please say what you mean. Understand that you as a person that believes in the gods (or just one god), when commenting on a Mother Nature paints the picture of some Mother Goddess of sorts that I also don't see evidence for, much like you god.

Either way, why did you argue that language cannot come from muteness. Do you acknowledge that even bacteria communicate?

SMH.

More inability to debate.

Because that is not how entropy works. There was only one big bang, and everything would have to begin with low entropy...the low entropy would have had to been an initial condition...but we know that this could not have been the case because that is not how entropy works in nature.

That does not address the possibility that the universe could not have existed in a previous form before this Big Bang you talk about.

Second, you have the good ole "infinite regression" problem. If the conditions for the big bang to occur had existed for past eternity, then why would the universe only begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago? Why not sooner? Why not later?

Perhaps I can help this make sense for you.
Maybe there were gods that made it happen 13.7 billions years ago. That seems up your ally. Either way, I don't pretend to know. That is for the religious.

No one is forcing you to accept that nature did it, either.

You protest to much. I'm open to the idea that gods created the universe. I accept that natural explanations also can account for it and god explanations are not needed, yet not ruled out.

So at best, your position should be agnosticism, and if it is...I'd like to see you apply all of that built-up energy arguing against naturalistic claims as you do theistic claims.

I don't find naturalistic claims quite as silly as all the differing god claims about how the universe got here.

But do I think that is gonna happen? No.

And now you know why. Show me a god and show me how it did what you claim and I will believe. Resort to ignorant desert nomadic stories, and I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. If a person accepts an explanation that the gods did it (whatever 'it' happens to be at the time) then the work is done.

Went over your head. Never mind.

Please show that this didn't go over your head.
How did the pyramids get built?
1) The gods did it. My work is now done.
2) I don't know. I will need to put in some work to establish some theories on how this was done. Lots of work ahead of me.

You sir, seem to prefer the route that takes no work when trying to explain things we don't know like how we got here and such.

Or I can acknowledge that the ultimate source of the stone blocks come from God, while also acknowledging that it was humans that actually did the building.

You have the cart before the horse. First you would need to show that the gods created the stone blocks. You are just claiming that 'the gods did it' so you don't have to put in any actual work. You seem to just be taking the easy way out.

But you do realize that I believe the ultimate source of the "stuff" needed to build the pyramids came from God, right?

Yes I realize this and yes I'm trying to explain to you that I believe your doing this so you can take the easy road. 'The gods did it' as an explanation means you can be done. No more work is required.

Marveling at the answer 'god did it' does not require any work.

Then neither does the answer "nature did it".

Please call me out on this as soon as you see me say such a thing. Until then, this is just a straw man.

What?
"All the gods are false. Well, all but your own of course."
"All the women out there aren't my mother. Well, all women but my own mother of course."

Exact...same...CONCEPT.

You are incorrect because I am not making any argument that relies on some claim about mothers. However, your entire argument relies on all gods being false, except for your favorite one. Your entire argument literally relies on this claim that from the outside seems nonsensical.

Not only are all God's false but my own, but according to Occam's Razor...there is no need to posit other "gods" when only one is needed to produce the effect (creation of the universe).

Actually, you need to show that you speak the truth here. Why should I believe your claim that all the gods are false, except for your own? How have you ruled out other potential causes? It doesn't all stem from your desire to run with the easiest explanation does it?

Wait a minute, you were the one who said that animals can't talk...

Actually, I'm the one that pointed out the fact that even bacteria communicate.

The point is, we are animals and animals kill each other (on naturalism)...and nature has nothing to say about whether killing someone is right or wrong.

Correct. Society tells us that it is not OK to kill and eat each other. Please stop with your straw man arguments.

I am simply attacking your worldview like you attack mines.

You're not attacking anything. Your just whining and complaining about evolution and a Big Bang. If you were attacking, I could at least try to rebut.

They are not equivalent. For example, if I was an all powerful god, I would not require the use of bug zappers to kill off mosquitoes, or gassing all life in a home to get rid of cockroaches. The Bible portrays an ineffective, punishing god that committed genocide on an entire planet rather than say, making all the sinners infertile. The comparison is not equivalent.

I am still trying to figure out how/why killing is wrong on naturalism.

Then stop. I'm addressing your god concept and how it is an ineffective punishing god. Rather than attempt to rebut, you complain about naturalism. I personally have already explained that society has determined that killing other humans is wrong, so why oh why do you continue to whine and complain about naturalism as if I'm arguing for it being a reason?

I judge your god concept to be a monster. Genocide is evil, whether Hitler does it or your god. You admitted this with the Eskimo example. I submit that making genocide OK is an evil that only religions and dictators can make.

Again, I am still trying to figure out how/why killing is wrong on naturalism.

I cannot help you.
Now do you acknowledge that your god concept is a genocidal, ineffective punishing god, or perhaps you would like to complain about gravity now as your dodge?
It seems obvious that you do not have an actual defense to my position.

So what is the difference in between killing a fly and a human being, on naturalism?

I don't know, ask a naturalist for crying out loud.

Well I supplied supporting information for my claim. That you couldn't disagree more is irrelevant. That you cannot refute my information is not.

LOL.

That is not funny.

Once you have done that, your work is done. Why study human biology if you believe you have the answer already? The gods are the easy explanation and they avoid having to do actual work.

So you are telling me that it is impossible for me to marvel at the human anatomy while at the same time acknowledging that an intelligent designer was behind it? False.

Nope. I think (and am willing to be shown wrong) that you would prefer to take the easy road (the gods did it) rather than study biology. My evidence for this is that you prefer to complain about naturalism then defend claims made against your assumed mechanism (the gods).

Are you not aware that anything relating to genetics presupposes chemical fine-tuning, which implies intelligent design?

No, I am not aware. Please show that you speak the truth.

When you find a fossil and you determine anything besides "hmmm, this once living organism has been dead a long time", you are allowing your presuppositions to interpret the evidence for you.

Which presupposition are you accusing me of? Note, I was a tongue talking, street evangelizing, drunk in the holy ghost Christians for 2 decades.

I read the Bible from cover to cover and studied actual evolution (not my church/Christian school type). This is what started the long process of eventually losing my beliefs.

Seeing a fossil says nothing about evolution...not to mention the fact that you don't have a complete fossil "chain" of any existing organism.

"Not only do we have a missing link, but the entire chain is missing".

I see you got your training on evolution from your church. I urge you to study on your own. I know it's a lot more work compared to just going with what your church says, but believe me, it is fascinating.

Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Sure, humans that lived in caves. Cave dwellers. People live in caves today. So what? That mean that they evolved from Java Man?

Perhaps. What it for sure rules out is some magic garden event and an evil genocidal flood event (no genetic bottleneck).

Once again he is comparing global genocide to eating a hamburger. It is truly terrifying to me that you do not understand the difference.

There is no difference. An animal death is an animal death.

Society disagrees with you and will punish you if you kill another human animal. You may eat hamburgers if you wish for the foreseeable future.

On naturalism, why is any killing wrong. I still don't have an answer yet.

Ask a naturalist.
I find killing to be wrong because I understand that I don't want to be killed. Flies don't have the same value to me as humans do, so my thoughts on killing a fly differ when compared to my thoughts on killing humans.

All this whining about naturalism and yet you have decided to worship a god that is claimed to have killed off all life on this planet, save 8 people. It's hard to take such a stance seriously, but I'm trying. Shaking your head doesn't help though, please refute my claims if you are able.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 419 by For_The_Kingdom]

I am saying that there is no evidence that sentient life came from nonliving material. You are more than welcome to believe that if you want. I, however, refuse to believe that you can create consciousness from inanimate matter.

OK ... if you refuse to believe something then there is no opening for debate. But there is clear and undisputable evidence that humans evolved from earlier Homo species, and those from earlier great ape species, through a long and "bushy" process that created progressively larger and more complex brains. I don't know how you can refuse to believe this given the massive amount of fossil and genetic evidence that supports it, but if you simply refuse to believe it then that is that.

Also, where do you draw the line on sentience? Are chimpanzees sentient? Dogs? Was Homo erectus, or Homo neanderthalensis (you certainly aren't claiming that these Homo species didn't exist, are you)? The relative intelligence level of these earlier Homo species increased over time based on the artifacts they left behind that we have studied, and the collective knowledge of Homo sapiens has increased exponentially as their population increased exponentially, until we arrived at where we are today. So I don't see how you can draw a line in time (or species) after which sentience was present, and before when it was not. Unless, of course, you believe that humans were suddenly created fully formed with the brains we have now, but we know for sure now that this is not how we got here.

Evolution depends wholeheartedly on the concept of abiogenesis.

This is simply not correct. Evolution obviously requires initial life forms to work with, but it does not in any way concern itself with how those life forms came into existence whether it was abiogenesis, panspermia, or some other mechanism ... even a creator. Some theists are perfectly happy to believe in the process of evolution by natural selection, although they claim it is the method their particular flavor of god chose to use. But evolution has no dependence on any such concept by definition. You are arbitrarily redefining evolution to suit your point of view, then claiming that because it does not satisfy the new added requirement (ie. explaining origin of life) that it is invalid.

It would be interesting to know where you draw the line on sentience appearing in living animals, ie. when this first appeared in a living thing.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 434 by DrNoGods]

Also, where do you draw the line on sentience? Are chimpanzees sentient?

Quite a timely question. After seeing this, I went to my Facebook feed and found this picture in a post.


In case anyone is wondering, the post says the baby survived. He apparently just collapsed, but woke up after a while.

The problem I see with sentience is that as we try to get more and more accurate, the blurrier it gets. We see that definitions we want to apply to only humans, behaviours we say only humans do, are seen in the animal kingdom as well.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 435 by rikuoamero]

The problem I see with sentience is that as we try to get more and more accurate, the blurrier it gets. We see that definitions we want to apply to only humans, behaviours we say only humans do, are seen in the animal kingdom as well.

I think this issue appears not to trouble creationists because they are convinced that humans are special creatures, created fully formed and intelligent as we are now, and accepting any sort of evolutionary development that began with nonsentient creatures (wherever they draw that line) is not compatible with this belief.

I specifically asked FTK the sentience boundary question because he is a representative theist who has wandered into the S&R section to participate in an Abiogenesis topic, and has stated that he "refuses to believe" that sentient life can arise from nonsentient life. So I'm curious if this refusal to believe is because he doesn't accept that an evolutionary process could accomplish the feat regardless of the time scales or processes involved, or simply because it is not compatible with the idea that humans are special creations and so an evolutionary origin must be rejected as a contradiction (ignoring 150+ years of science).

[For_The_Kingdom]

How is the statement accurate, when you have JUST agreed with me that life is made up of non-life?

Were your parents nonliving when you was conceived? Yes or no. Simple question.

Then please, be as accurate as possible. Instead of saying 'life cannot arise from non-life', say something like 'conscious life cannot arise from unconscious life, or non-life in general'.

I have been saying over, and OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER again that sentient life cannot rise from nonlife. How many times have I said this? You apparently think that there is a difference between consciousness and sentience, and the two terms cannot be used interchangeably. You are simply wrong as usual.

For the longest time, in my eyes, you honestly sounded like you consider only things that have consciousness to be alive, which is where the disagreement between you and I comes from.

Yet, I've constantly made the distinction between things that are "living", yet not sentient...and things that are living, yet sentient.

See! You keep on jumping ahead to talking about sentience, almost as if the existence of non-sentient life doesn't merit a blip on your mental radar.

It does merit a blip on my mental radar, because you don't have a scientific explanation as to the origin of life PERIOD, in general. You don't have a clue as to how life originated from nonliving material, in general. Much less sentient life. So you are clueless either way, even though I obviously want to put more salt on the wound by talking about conscious life, because that is much more fun to see naturalist try to defend such an impossible, unscientific, faith-based belief which they have no natural justification for whatsoever besides the typical "Well, God doesn't exist so he couldn't have done it, so mother nature must have done it."

What about non-sentient animals or life-forms? Like say a snail?

What about sentient animals or life forms? Like say a human?

You agreed that a tree is living, so what about a snail?

I agreed that a dogs are sentient creatures. So what about cats?

When a snail procreates with another snail, we have life forming, but not sentience.

Then the question of "life origins" will be asked of the very first snail...just like the question of "conscious origins" can be asked for the very first conscious agent. The truth is; you don't have an answer for either one.

Because in your reasoning, you are, to put it as mildly as I can, sloppy. You say 'life cannot arise from non-life', and make no distinction between life that is sentient, and life that is non-sentient. Given that you never made the distinction, I had to approach it as you saying that ALL life (whether sentient or not) HAS to come from other life.

That is a lie. On almost every single occasion at which I discuss this topic, I almost ALWAYS (certainly more often than not) make SURE I put the word "sentient" in the context of every single statement I make when I make my spiel about "life from nonliving material. I always throw the word "sentient" in there. Why? Because as I stated before, I know there will be people like you who will say "Well, what about trees...what about plants.?"....and you obviously did exactly that, because you said "well, what about bacteria".

I did my very best to prevent such a thing, yet again, despite my best effort, you STILL managed to sucker me into the very kind of conversation I was trying to prevent. Only rikuo. SMH.

It is sad, because you follow my posts closely than anyone on here, so you should KNOW that I always make the distinction.

But anyways, look; life from nonliving material is scientifically unproven at the present 5-14-17 moment. Your comrades on this forum admits it. Science admits it. There isn't really anything you can say besides "we are working on it" (Bust Nak).

And that is just "life from nonlife"...once you throw the concept of "consciousness" in there, the problem becomes even more difficult/impossible for science. So either way, there are more questions than answers.

Since you now agree with me that
1) Humans are living things
2) Humans are ultimately made up of non-living particles,
can you outline what this does to your statement of "life cannot arise from non-life"?

Can you outline to me as to what is the origin of consciousness?

Justify this belief. I don't see the connection between the If and then parts of the statement.

Does the theory of relativity or any other natural laws, theories, phenomena tell us whether or not torture for fun is wrong? No, but rikuo can tell us that torturing for fun is wrong.

Mother nature: not a personal, moral agent.
Rikuo: a personal, moral agent

If objective morality exists, then it must come from a personal, moral agent in the same way that subjective morality from you yourself, must come from you, yourself...a personal, moral agent.

What difference? According to Thesallonians, we have some humans believing things that are false, because of what spirits say or do to them. Whether God directly sends the spirits out or merely looses them, doesn't make much of a difference.

I think there is a difference. There is a difference between God sending a demon to go to a little boy disguised as an ice cream man to lure the boy into the truck with the promise of a free ice cream, and God sending a demon/spirit to a Christian's house disguised as a Muslim to get the gullible Christian to convert to Islam.

In other words, the Christian should know better, but the child, not necessarily.

Examine the following scene from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets please.
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]
Is Professor Lockhart, (the guy who opens the cage) at fault for the havoc that the pixies cause in the classroom? Notice that at no point does he tell the pixies to "go out and cause havoc".

There is no lying aspect to the Harry Potter stuff. False equivalency.

It prevents Lion B from eating what Lion A wants to eat, thus ensuring Lion A's survival and gives Lion A a better chance to mate with females and have progeny.

Wait a minute, what? Well, maybe Lion B thinks that Lion A should go out and get its own food. Every think about that? Or are you justifying reasons why animals kill each other...which is the same thing Bloods/Crips do.

Is this anything at all like the same reasoning God does when or if he decides to kill?

You are assuming that killing is a bad thing and survival is a good thing. Who told you that? What is that conclusion based on?

Do you hear about me going out raping and murdering?

And I am asking why are those things objectively bad?

Note that I have NEVER stated that whatever moral standards I hold to are objective (i.e. for everyone and everything). Have you? I would think you have, given that you say your moral standard is God, who apparently is for everyone.

If it exists..

Really? So tell me how many times has God failed or lost when it comes to your evaluations of a moral judgement?

Never. Actually, to be honest, the only thing that I can think of, regarding the Bible, that I merely QUESTION the act of God (on the largest scale that I will ever question God) is the part where David takes a census of the Kingdom, much to God's dismay.

And God's discipline was so great that he sent a death angel out, and 70,000 Israelites were killed.

Now that I read the story, it is apparent that the carrying out of the census was a sin that all Israel took part in (besides the places that Job didn't count), but still.

Beside that, not really anything. God is alright with me.

Please describe to me where in your system of moral evaluation it is even possible for God to fail? Are there lines, or actions, that once crossed, God goes from being 'moral' to 'immoral'?

No, because any God that can "fail" is not a God that should be rendered worship. In fact, Judeo-Christianity is based upon a morally perfect God. Anything less than that would be...Islam lol.

In my reading of what you write about God and morality, I honestly don't see where it's possible for God to fail. Much like the MOA, what you write gives God an automatic pass i.e. it's rigged.

A maximally great being can't unintentionally fail. You call it rigged, I call it "just a MGB, being a maximally great being".

Once you declare God to BE this objective standard, how is it God can fail?

He can't, thats the point.

Narrows eyes Need I remind you of what happened to my sisters?

Remind away. I don't know.

I am not saying that. I am saying
"I don't know the reason, others are contending there is a reason, but are not elaborating on it or giving details about it. Therefore, I operate as if there is no reason to do so, until or if a reason to do so comes to my attention that is satisfactory".

Fair enough.

In the morality you describe, you are unable to delineate what is fair compared to unfair.

Well I put it to you this way; the Hebrews were God's chosen people, right? Despite that, when they did wrong, they had their asses handed to them, didn't they? They didn't get any free passes.

Sounds fair to me.

Notice the difference between the two statements. One is a theological statement that describes a moral or legal position, whereas the other statement makes no mention of a moral or legal position.

And here is the typical implication of "the statement that is theological is less viable than the the other, non-theological statement.".

That is what I got out of it.

You make it out as if the two statements are in direct conflict with one another. Roman Catholics generally tend to believe both statements.

No they don't. Last I checked, Catholics believe there was God behind the curtains, getting the play together. Unlike one of the statements..

You consistently try and describe other humans (like myself) as if the mere fact we're humans who do not know everything means our own answers and responses are unsatisfactory...almost as though you yourself do not 'suffer' from this same problem.

I am saying that some questions are beyond the scope of observation and experiment...which are questions regarding origins.

does NOT describe yourself as well?

As if I have a problem admitting the limitations of my knowledge. There are plenty questions I have that are unanswered at this point.

Ultimately, everything goes back to God...but the "How's" and the "Why's". I dont know.

Circular reasoning. Better = whatever God wills, and whatever God wills = better.

Its not circular reasoning if it is true.

So God cannot fail whenever (or if) you make a moral evaluation of him.

I don't understand this assessment.

Whatever he does is moral by sheer definition, no matter how harmful or beneficial the act is.

Absolutely.

Nope, basic stuff that I learned in my tweens.

Kinda like me learning evolution in biology class.

Show this statement to be true. I don't agree with that. This doesn't mean I think it to be false, just that at this moment in time, it has not been shown to be true.

Just think of lawmakers. Lawmakers are personal, moral agents, correct? Can you see it being any other way? So wouldn't it make sense for objective moral values to be based upon (its foundation) from a personal, moral agent?

See, you certainly understand the concept...it is just once it comes to the concept of a "G" word (God), all of a sudden it is "hold on now, I don't agree. I don't understand. I don't know".

Typical.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Readers, please note that this response from FtK to Clownboat comes AFTER his response to myself, where he agrees that humans are physical animals, whose ultimate physical makeup is that of non-living elementary particles such as oxygen and hydrogen.

Readers, please note that I never stated/implied that humans are physical animals based on my own position. Rather, I always state that humans are animals on the NATURALISTIC worldview.

Of course I don't believe that humans are animals, you know, being a Christian and all.