Is your gods punishment fair?

[Confused]

I am new to this site, so please bare with me if I seem a little of center. I will try to stick to the rules. After reading these threads for many years, I am just now getting the courage to start to ask questions of my own. feel free to correct me if I mess up.

Ok, lets for the sake of this thread say that the god of christianity is all knowing. Lets say the he knew what you were going to do before you were born, but loved you so much he still allowed your birth to occur. Let us even go far out into the left field and say that he knew what choices you would make in all decisions although he didn't force you to make them. I am not arguing free-will vs determinism. I am only wondering how it is that this god who knew what you would do, loved you so much he allowed your birth to do what you were going to do, and then punished you for doing what he knew you were going to do. If he already knew what would happen, and then allowed it to happen, how can he then turn around and sentence you to eternity in hell for what he knew you would do and allowed you to do?

Maybe I am missing some logical link here, but it seems to me that if this god knew the birth of an individual would result in the torture and death of even one person, isn't this god the actual guilty party for setting into motion an inevitable event? Is this the god that so many people would like for me to follow?

So does anyone know:
1) Does god love you so much that knowing what you would do and what you would become, he still allowed your birth so that you might know his love?

2) Is god some sadistic being who knows what you are going to do, allows you to be born, gets a cheap thrill watching you carry out some of the most sadistic crimes against humanity before sending you to the eternal fires of hell?

3) There is no god.

Personally, I have to say that there isn't enough available information to make an informed decision, but logic tells me its 3. If there is a god-fearing individual who can logically tell me otherwise, I would love to hear it.

[dunsapy]

Dunsapy. Scotracer has JUST explained to you why evolution is not random and why a random test will be flawed and not in any way representative of evolution. Then you immediately use a random test to show how unlikely it is.

Why on earth are you arguing about what evolution is with people who clearly are more versed in the subject?

this will probably be way too complicated, but imagine a game.

each team builds one robot and sends it into a maze to get to the exit on the other side. if it runs into another team's robot, it can fight or run away. if it is destroyed, its game over for the robot. At the end of the round, each robot that makes it through the maze creates five copies of itself, which undergo one completely random change which is not affected by any logical process- it's totally random. All the robots with a change(or mutation) that makes them fail to survive the maze, dies. game over for it. every one that gets through goes on to the next round.

This game closely resembles evolution. each 'round' is one generation. There is some random change, yes. but the ones with bad changes, die, the ones with good changes, make more robots. Eventually all these robots will evolve in different ways to become better at getting through the maze. THAT is evolution. not the random games you and other theists frequently propose. and intelligence is NOT guiding this is any way. once the first robot enters the maze, no human touches anything.

and before you say that the fact that human created the robots to begin with invalidates this, it doesn't, because evolution says nothing about how life got there. it starts with the life that is there already - like this game. it doesn't care how you build your robot, it jsut makes them evolve.

to the science people out there - that would be a really fun game wouldn't it?

The reason I talk with science and scientist is that , even though they know more about science than I do, they do not use science to explain life or evolution.
I think this is more an emotional stand science has taken , than a scientific one.
Because science has taken on the job of explaining how life and evolution happened with out a creator. But with out scientific proof or facts.
How can scientists say evolution is a fact, when they don't know how life started in the first place. Has science answered the question could life happen on it's own? There is only 2 posibilities. Yes or no. They don't know the answer to this. The second part is if it started on it's own did it or could it evolve from that , to all we see today. There is no proof it could do that. The other choice is creation. Either some God started it and programed all the 'evolution' ( which is not the evolution taught by science) or God did create life according to it' kinds ( species) . In both of these you would have to explain who that God is.

each team builds one robot and sends it into a maze to get to the exit on the other side.

In this opening line you blew the game. Because you need intelligence to build the robots and then figure out the game rules. If you wanted to support the idea of life and evolution , you would have to sit back and watch it all happen on it's own.
That is why science can't prove life happened on it's own in a lab experiment.
First of all science say life took millions of years, for the experiment would also have to take that long. You can't gather up materials becasue that took intelligence to do that. You can't protect it becasue how do you know how it was protected or that length of time. You have to ask the question, was the atmosphere set up for life in the first place. Because what we have seen from other planets, it would have to be.
So you see the only way science can show life and evolution happened is to find another planet where it happened that way.

[joer]

Final wrote:

and intelligence is NOT guiding this is any way. once the first robot enters the maze, no human touches anything.

and before you say that the fact that human created the robots to begin with invalidates this, it doesn't, because evolution says nothing about how life got there.

Intelligence is what created the game and all the processes and beings who participate in it. You can say in comes from nothing but that doesn’t make as much sense as it came from an Intelligent Creator. IMHO Intelligent design takes place up until the first being evolves with soul and God like potentials. Then Design rests and FREE WILL takes over. From that time about a million years ago we’ve been on our own. And I have very little doubt that science will discover this and it will become fact. The possibility of an Adam and Eve scenario where superhumans created by God Through their Life plasm entering into the gene pool and all of a sudden there is the appearance of a gene for the increased brain size and intellectual brain function in humankind.

Life plasm from a new source or randomly generated super good, super beneficial mutation? Science will tell at a future date.

Science Magazine, 9/9/2005, contained an article titled “MICROCEPHALIN, A Gene Regulating Brain Size Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans� says in part, “The gene Microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size and has evolved under strong positive selection in the human evolutionary lineage. We show that one genetic variant of Microcephalin in modern humans, which arose about 37,000 years ago, increased in frequency too rapidly to be compatible with neutral drift.�
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5741/1717

In other words, this is a case where recent scientific discovery in the field of genetics recognizes significant genetic alteration.

[dunsapy]

As you said, it is subjective interpretation of reality, which is based on perception of the world. I have no problem with such a view but when people try to use their position to subvert scientific progress or proliferation I get very aggitated. If I've offended anyone in my previous posts - I apologise, I just love science so.

I think we all like science here. That's why the discussion.
No one here has offended me , I hope I haven't offended anyone personally, though science may have a few bruises, or maybe not. I realize that when something is believed or thought to be believed, and this is questioned, that, it can take awhile for the brain to accept that.
My only purpose is to get people to think what they are saying when it comes to this topic.

[FinalEnigma]

Dunsapy. Scotracer has JUST explained to you why evolution is not random and why a random test will be flawed and not in any way representative of evolution. Then you immediately use a random test to show how unlikely it is.

Why on earth are you arguing about what evolution is with people who clearly are more versed in the subject?

this will probably be way too complicated, but imagine a game.

each team builds one robot and sends it into a maze to get to the exit on the other side. if it runs into another team's robot, it can fight or run away. if it is destroyed, its game over for the robot. At the end of the round, each robot that makes it through the maze creates five copies of itself, which undergo one completely random change which is not affected by any logical process- it's totally random. All the robots with a change(or mutation) that makes them fail to survive the maze, dies. game over for it. every one that gets through goes on to the next round.

This game closely resembles evolution. each 'round' is one generation. There is some random change, yes. but the ones with bad changes, die, the ones with good changes, make more robots. Eventually all these robots will evolve in different ways to become better at getting through the maze. THAT is evolution. not the random games you and other theists frequently propose. and intelligence is NOT guiding this is any way. once the first robot enters the maze, no human touches anything.

and before you say that the fact that human created the robots to begin with invalidates this, it doesn't, because evolution says nothing about how life got there. it starts with the life that is there already - like this game. it doesn't care how you build your robot, it jsut makes them evolve.

to the science people out there - that would be a really fun game wouldn't it?

The reason I talk with science and scientist is that , even though they know more about science than I do, they do not use science to explain life or evolution.
I think this is more an emotional stand science has taken , than a scientific one.
Because science has taken on the job of explaining how life and evolution happened with out a creator. But with out scientific proof or facts.
How can scientists say evolution is a fact, when they don't know how life started in the first place. Has science answered the question could life happen on it's own? There is only 2 posibilities. Yes or no. They don't know the answer to this. The second part is if it started on it's own did it or could it evolve from that , to all we see today. There is no proof it could do that. The other choice is creation. Either some God started it and programed all the 'evolution' ( which is not the evolution taught by science) or God did create life according to it' kinds ( species) . In both of these you would have to explain who that God is.

each team builds one robot and sends it into a maze to get to the exit on the other side.

In this opening line you blew the game.

I'm talking about evolution, not the origin of life. Sorry, I didn't blow it.

Because you need intelligence to build the robots and then figure out the game rules. If you wanted to support the idea of life and evolution , you would have to sit back and watch it all happen on it's own.
That is why science can't prove life happened on it's own in a lab experiment.
First of all science say life took millions of years, for the experiment would also have to take that long. You can't gather up materials becasue that took intelligence to do that. You can't protect it becasue how do you know how it was protected or that length of time. You have to ask the question, was the atmosphere set up for life in the first place. Because what we have seen from other planets, it would have to be.
So you see the only way science can show life and evolution happened is to find another planet where it happened that way.

Apparently, if we want to discover the possible origin of life, we have to set up the worst experiment in the history of man, with no controls and no safety measures. but wait! we cant even set it up, because that uses intelligence!

Okay, now explain to me why the fact that we haven't done this experiment proves God. You have designed the rules so that we cannot do this experiment, because doing it biases the outcome, but because we haven't done it, you conclude God.


In order to test the theory of evolution, we must set up an experiment with the same basic conditions as evolution had to work with. we don't have to prove the origin of life first. We don't have to prove how the life got there which evolved.

[dunsapy]

Apparently, if we want to discover the possible origin of life, we have to set up the worst experiment in the history of man, with no controls and no safety measures. but wait! we cant even set it up, because that uses intelligence!

Okay, now explain to me why the fact that we haven't done this experiment proves God. You have designed the rules so that we cannot do this experiment, because doing it biases the outcome, but because we haven't done it, you conclude God.


In order to test the theory of evolution, we must set up an experiment with the same basic conditions as evolution had to work with. we don't have to prove the origin of life first. We don't have to prove how the life got there which evolved.

First, the idea is, that you don't set up and experiment. That defeats the purpose.
But , look at it this way, why not try to create life, under the most favorable conditions that science can think of. Think of your self as a creator , and try from that angle. (By doing the experiment only shows creation anyway.) (After all isn't science just trying to show how life could start, not to show that it could start with out a creator)
Personally , I think if science took the other approach they would progress, alot faster. After all there are some interesting 'inventions' from the creation already. Why not carry that further, into the actual study of sciences.
Science has tried the other approach for a 150 years with no progress on the start to life, or proof of evolution. That should tell you something.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 62 Post 612:

First I remind everyone mine is opinion based on an amateur understanding of the topics. I'm prepared to support my claims with evidence, logic, and reasonably derived conclusions.

>some quote mining for brevity<

You can say >it< comes from nothing but that doesn’t make as much sense as it came from an Intelligent Creator.

Hey joer, hope all is well with you and yours.

The 'life came from nothing' argument is, IMO, a bit of a distortion.
One hypothesis, briefly: simple molecules become more complex; these in turn become self replicating; somewhere along the line "life" as it is commonly considered "occurs".
In this scenario, some will say the self-replicators are 'life', others will require some higher definition such as conversion of energy. There are others still (usually outside the biological sciences) that will require sentience, or "soul". Nowhere in this scenario is it ever considered, or proposed, that "life came from nothing".

I personally consider such "life came from nothing" arguments to be either a strawman, or a complete failure to understand what the scientists are telling us.

IMHO Intelligent design takes place up until the first being evolves with soul and God like potentials.

The problem here is there is no way to verify this. In my example above we can see complex molecules forming, we can see these molecules replicate, and we can see them "create" life (or more properly they "replicate their own life"). In terms of the ToE, progress from simple to complex molecules to life is not such a difficult step, given the time and mutations involved.

I do agree this is only a reasonably, logically derived conclusion, but danged if it ain't so reasonable and logical, IMO.

The possibility of an Adam and Eve scenario where superhumans created by God Through their Life plasm entering into the gene pool and all of a sudden there is the appearance of a gene for the increased brain size and intellectual brain function in humankind.

In terms of intelligent design, I think this is the more plausible scenario, above the Genesis tales.

In terms of actually being provable, I just don't see how we can even test for it, much less verify it.

>references Microcephalin and brain size<

This would fit your ID position, but again, it fails any attempts at verifying such to be caused by a god.

With my amateur understanding, there are two strong competitors to explain increased brain size:
1- Under the first scenario, primitive humans coming down out of trees and walking upright opens up the hands for tool use. This tool use drives development of increased brain size, partly as a result of the thinking required of tool making. Along with this there is the increasing consumption of meat. This meat is so high in energy content it actually leaves our ancestors time to "contemplate", this contemplation spurs further tool development, and further brain size.
Chimpanzees are actually a great example of this, as they have been found to actually "store" tools. It is my contention we will eventually see chimpanzees using tools in their search for meat (small monkeys and such at the current, with larger game possible as tool use increases and becomes more sophisticated).
2- Another scenario has the smaller jaw allowing room for a larger cranium. I see this scenario as really just an extension of the previous one, because IMO the smaller jaw only comes about because food is less difficult to eat (permanent ground dwellers no longer have to crack nuts with their teeth), and later, tools allow for "pre-processing" of food.

None of this requires a god of any kind for explaining how it comes about.

[joer]

Man Scot! What a great post!

I like how you see things. And I see them that way also. I'm your counterpart because of experiential reality parts of my perspective. But I love how you see things. We see things quite a lot alike I think. (I mean what’s a plus or minus God among friends) The cosmological stuff and quantum Physics fascinate me too. I can't hardly wait for the Large Hadron Collider to start churning out data.

You wrote:

(although the modern religions are demonstrably wrong, along with their scriptures).

I agree, But I also find much good in them also. I denounce the bad and uplift the good. You write:

but when people try to use their position to subvert scientific progress or proliferation I get very agitated.

I know what you mean my friend. I get the same way when non-believers try to impose their view upon me. I accept when we have different views but when I get treated like I hold believer’s views that I don't. I get irked a little when it happens 5 or 6 times in succession. But I’ve caught myself doing the same thing. Talking to a non-believer like they are an atheist is my biggest fault. I had to apologize to Zzy several times for making that mistake. I apologize to all to whom I have done the same.

On my Mom's side, we may have come from the clan of Jordan by Aberdeen. And the name of Burwick on her mother's side (my grandma), seems to have been first used in Scotland between the years 1000AD to 1100 AD.

Anyway my friend great to meet you. I will be looking forward to your posts.

[joer]

Hey joer, hope all is well with you and yours.

Everything is Good my friend. Thank you for asking. Hope you are doing well too my friend.

The 'life came from nothing' argument is, IMO, a bit of a distortion.
One hypothesis, briefly: simple molecules become more complex; these in turn become self replicating; somewhere along the line "life" as it is commonly considered "occurs".
In this scenario, some will say the self-replicators are 'life', others will require some higher definition such as conversion of energy. There are others still (usually outside the biological sciences) that will require sentience, or "soul". Nowhere in this scenario is it ever considered, or proposed, that "life came from nothing".

I personally consider such "life came from nothing" arguments to be either a strawman, or a complete failure to understand what the scientists are telling us.

Hi again joey. I was responding to this comment by Final Enigma.

it doesn't, because evolution says nothing about how life got there. it starts with the life that is there already

So I hear what your are saying Joey and I will respond to it. I guess it was “evolution says nothing about how life got there�, that I reacted to. To me it’s unacceptable to accept that Life was just there. Because I KNOW it wasn’t just there. At some point in time Life started on this planet. And when it did it already had some very complex DNA. The replication basis for the first unicelled animals and their evolution to more and more complex forms of Life WAS ALREADY THERE in the DNA. How’d that happen? How could Life NOT BE THERE and then all of a sudden BE THERE?

My mom was an atheist and I remember her giving me reprints of scientific articles on the possible beginning of Life when I was like 9 or 10 years old.(1959 or 60) And I read them because my mom was so knowledgeable and I believed a whole lot of what she said. The primordial soup idea was convincing to me at that age. The idea the all the material components of which the basic amino acids were composed of, all in a heaving bubbling rich soup of the components of life and then a lightning strike or some act of energy upon the soup ignites the first Life. It was the spark that befuddled me a bit. How could that start life? Anyway that’s around when I did my empirical testing of God. which tested true for me.

You wrote:

joer wrote:

IMHO Intelligent design takes place up until the first being evolves with soul and God like potentials.

The problem here is there is no way to verify this.

Well there’s no objective evidential way. But there are ways that are generally unacceptable to the non-believer, that adds to a convergence of evidence for the beliver.

In my example above we can see complex molecules forming, we can see these molecules replicate, and we can see them "create" life (or more properly they "replicate their own life"). In terms of the ToE, progress from simple to complex molecules to life is not such a difficult step, given the time and mutations involved. True. But it doesn’t give that first complex, compared to inorganic forms, form of LIFE. The beginning.

I do agree this is only a reasonably, logically derived conclusion, but danged if it ain't so reasonable and logical, IMO.

As it is I see nothing wrong with it. But there are also indicators of sudden changes that are NOT indicative of a natural selection process like those that have been described here recently.

joer wrote:

The possibility of an Adam and Eve scenario where superhumans created by God Through their Life plasm entering into the gene pool and all of a sudden there is the appearance of a gene for the increased brain size and intellectual brain function in humankind.

In terms of intelligent design, I think this is the more plausible scenario, above the Genesis tales.

In terms of actually being provable, I just don't see how we can even test for it, much less verify it.

Well they are beginning to recognize the development of certain traits or features of development that do NOT resemble the Natural selection and mutation models, because of the suddenness of the change. You wrote:

joer wrote:

>references Microcephalin and brain size<

This would fit your ID position, but again, it fails any attempts at verifying such to be caused by a god. You’re right it does. But proving or objectively identifying a cause of an event in the view of many non-believers is evidence it is not of God. Because we objectively found the objective evidence for it. So the requirement of non-believers of showing evidence of God by their definition of evidence would negate it as being evidence of God. So it’s an illogical request. But it doesn’t seem non-believers realize it’s illogical or they do and they do anyway KNOWING that the believer can NEVER meat their demands. I don’t believe you or Scot or many others are the latter, Joey.

With my amateur understanding, there are two strong competitors to explain increased brain size:
1- Under the first scenario, primitive humans coming down out of trees and walking upright opens up the hands for tool use. This tool use drives development of increased brain size, partly as a result of the thinking required of tool making. Along with this there is the increasing consumption of meat. This meat is so high in energy content it actually leaves our ancestors time to "contemplate", this contemplation spurs further tool development, and further brain size.
Chimpanzees are actually a great example of this, as they have been found to actually "store" tools. It is my contention we will eventually see chimpanzees using tools in their search for meat (small monkeys and such at the current, with larger game possible as tool use increases and becomes more sophisticated).
2- Another scenario has the smaller jaw allowing room for a larger cranium. I see this scenario as really just an extension of the previous one, because IMO the smaller jaw only comes about because food is less difficult to eat (permanent ground dwellers no longer have to crack nuts with their teeth), and later, tools allow for "pre-processing" of food.

None of this requires a god of any kind for explaining how it comes about.

You’re right joey. The other doesn’t require God for explaining, it just has God integrated into it by POV. And both positions are speculations. BUT yours sounds more like it could be Objectively proven some day. BUT something else could be scientifically discovered like so often happens that changes the way we think about it.

Thank Joseph. I liked that post. It was sweet. Very logical even in how the suppositions fit together nicely in an imagined possible evolutionary scenario to explain the entrance of the Microcephalin and brain size gene’s entrance into the gene pool.

Good will to you joey.

[FinalEnigma]

Hey joer, hope all is well with you and yours.

Everything is Good my friend. Thank you for asking. Hope you are doing well too my friend.

The 'life came from nothing' argument is, IMO, a bit of a distortion.
One hypothesis, briefly: simple molecules become more complex; these in turn become self replicating; somewhere along the line "life" as it is commonly considered "occurs".
In this scenario, some will say the self-replicators are 'life', others will require some higher definition such as conversion of energy. There are others still (usually outside the biological sciences) that will require sentience, or "soul". Nowhere in this scenario is it ever considered, or proposed, that "life came from nothing".

I personally consider such "life came from nothing" arguments to be either a strawman, or a complete failure to understand what the scientists are telling us.

Hi again joey. I was responding to this comment by Final Enigma.

it doesn't, because evolution says nothing about how life got there. it starts with the life that is there already

So I hear what your are saying Joey and I will respond to it. I guess it was “evolution says nothing about how life got there�, that I reacted to. To me it’s unacceptable to accept that Life was just there. Because I KNOW it wasn’t just there. At some point in time Life started on this planet. And when it did it already had some very complex DNA. The replication basis for the first unicelled animals and their evolution to more and more complex forms of Life WAS ALREADY THERE in the DNA. How’d that happen? How could Life NOT BE THERE and then all of a sudden BE THERE?

Of course life wasn't just there spontaneously. my whole point with that comment was that evolution doesn't care how life got there. That's a different theory. the theory of evolution addresses what happened once life was already there to get it to where it is now. We don't know how life started, I won't argue that we do, but how life started is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

[Zzyzx]

.

Of course life wasn't just there spontaneously. my whole point with that comment was that evolution doesn't care how life got there. That's a different theory. the theory of evolution addresses what happened once life was already there to get it to where it is now. We don't know how life started, I won't argue that we do, but how life started is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

It seems as though creationists are intent upon FAILING to understand that evolution and origin of life are NOT the same subject. They insist on bundling together two different issues in order to have something they think they can argue against successfully.

"Science cannot show how life originated, so evolution doesn't occur (no matter how much genetic change can be shown) and therefore goddidit".

Evolution is demonstrated every time we hear about microorganisms developing resistance to antibiotics. That resistance is an example of genetic change – evolution.

Study of how the organism originated initially (origin of life or of that organism) is NOT the same as study of how the organism changes genetically over time (evolution).

I am not certain that the lack of understanding of the difference between evolution and origin of life is willful ignorance or deliberate disregard for what is known of nature. However, it appears as though that is often the case. In order to promote creationist theories, otherwise reasoning and rational people seem to insist that apples are oranges – that evolution is the origin of life.