Ephesians 2:10

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9 here:

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said " For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator.
...

My emboldenizationin'.

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

[EduChris]

...Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

Depends on what you mean by "a god." If you are referring to "volitional non-contingent reality," then yes, there is no other epistemically justified conclusion so long as human beings possess genuine consciousness and volition. But if we do not possess these qualities, then there are no epistemically justified conclusions at all, just as there are no meaningful questions.

In other words, either theism is true, or else non-theism is absurd.

[ThatGirlAgain]

From Post 9 here:

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said "For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator.
...

My emboldenizationin'.

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

The original discussion (see below) was about interpretation of what a certain scriptural verse meant. Bambi is saying that the interpretation that humans are created by God for the purpose of progressing to good works is more reasonable than the interpretation that children are not human until they know right from wrong. The discussion in the referenced post is entirely within the context of the intended meaning of the verse. The issue of whether God really exists and/or created people is irrelevant to that discussion. I think it is safe to say that Paul (if Paul was indeed the author of Ephesians) believed in a creator God.

The OP is misguided.

Original discussion in context:

So, one is not 'human' until one knows the difference between good and bad? What is that, about age 2 or so??

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said " For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator. And the purpose is to progress "unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." The good work is the purpose. But if you're not into it then you might be here. King Solomon said "Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions"

[Moses Yoder]

From Post 9 here:

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said " For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator.
...

My emboldenizationin'.

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

What other conclusions are there?

I suppose one could conclude we are here accidentally. One would then have to explain how the world has developed such a balanced and organized eco-system for so many years. I think it is more logical to conclude that we were created by a superior being, or God. Whether that is the Christian God or not is up for debate.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2:

EduChris, I know we bump heads a lot, but I hope to show that I sincerely seek to explore your position with an understanding that I ain't the brightest bulb in the drawer. If I misunderstand, it's not in a deliberate attempt to divert from a given notion...

Depends on what you mean by "a god."

Plenty fair. I prefer to leave such a definition up to the debater, while understanding there's some quite common notions floatin' about. I think my take in the OP is accurate enough, given common understandings, and as it leaves definitions open.

If you are referring to "volitional non-contingent reality," then yes, there is no other epistemically justified conclusion so long as human beings possess genuine consciousness and volition.

This seems more like the argument that the universe can't exist without a "creator", but the "creator" is not bound by the same notion.

You seem to take the concept of reality, where it is rather ethereal, and apply some form of consciousness to it. Is this a fair assessment? If so, does this consciousness rely on physical form? I'm at a loss to confirm how my questions here are on topic, but hope the exploration may prove informative.

But if we do not possess these qualities, then there are no epistemically justified conclusions at all, just as there are no meaningful questions.

A question, by definition, has meaning.

In other words, either theism is true, or else non-theism is absurd.

I find such use of the term "absurd" to be more indicative of incredulity than reasoned thought, where all that is offered is a rather generic and somewhat ill-defined "volitional non-contingent reality" (while granting further clarity on your part, and noting that my understanding of some of your previous posts in this regard may be off).

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 3:

The original discussion (see below) was about interpretation of what a certain scriptural verse meant.
...

I'm totally cool with that, and linked to the post in question to ensure folks had the full context of what was being gotten at, as well as using ellipses to ensure folks knew there was more being said.

Now I'm trying to determine whether a part of that entire notion should be considered reasonable and rational.

The OP is misguided.

I present Post 2 and Post 4*, presented by theists in support of the notion presented in the OP, as evidence that as presented, the OP can be discussed without the "missing" context. *Noting Post 4 was presented after your post.

So, I don't doubt the original post had it's validity in its understanding of someone else's understanding. I seek to determine if the original understanding should be considered reasonable and rational.

Maybe I'd remove the the original poster's name from it, to ensure they're not held to account here in this OP, but as above, I contend the OP is legit.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 4:

What other conclusions are there?

"Humans are a product of evolution" comes to mind.

I suppose one could conclude we are here accidentally.

How might'n one show we're here on purpose?

One would then have to explain how the world has developed such a balanced and organized eco-system for so many years.

The ToE seems to account quite well for such a condition.

I think it is more logical to conclude that we were created by a superior being, or God.

But why do you think thus?

Whether that is the Christian God or not is up for debate.

I 'preciate that, and don't wish to engage in whether this'n or that'n is "the one", but whether any of the various described god concepts should be considered most rationally at 'fault'.

[Moses Yoder]

From Post 4:

What other conclusions are there?

"Humans are a product of evolution" comes to mind.

I suppose one could conclude we are here accidentally.

How might'n one show we're here on purpose?

One would then have to explain how the world has developed such a balanced and organized eco-system for so many years.

The ToE seems to account quite well for such a condition.

I think it is more logical to conclude that we were created by a superior being, or God.

But why do you think thus?

Whether that is the Christian God or not is up for debate.

I 'preciate that, and don't wish to engage in whether this'n or that'n is "the one", but whether any of the various described god concepts should be considered most rationally at 'fault'.

I happen to believe that even if I weren't raised in a Christian home, but instead was raised in an atheist home, I would have my doubts about the theory of evolution. One problem I have is that they claim to know this stuff. I know, Christians also claim to know stuff, and I did to, but since reading this site and realizing there are intelligent arguments against Chrisitanity I try hard not to know so much. I believe and have faith, but I don't know. Scientists claim to know what happened. They weren't there, how could they know? They put a rock in the machine and say "this rock is 415 million years old". Then they develope a "better" machine and say about the same rock "This rock is after all only 352 million years old." How could they possibly know? Were they there? This is the problem I have with modern science; too many assumptions, and then they all pat each other on the back and say "Nice Job!" Yes, I have a subscription to Smithsonian magazine.

[EduChris]

...This seems more like the argument that the universe can't exist without a "creator", but the "creator" is not bound by the same notion...

It's more like, something exists by necessity, and if volition is involved in that something, then that something is God.

...does this consciousness rely on physical form?...

Depends on what you mean by "physical form." For example, in your view, does gravity have a "physical form"? Is gravity constrained by space and time? How about logic? Is logic situated within space and time?

Anyway, consciousness is either a meaningless illusion or else it is really and truly something that makes a difference in the world (even if it cannot always be neatly situated within space and time).

...A question, by definition, has meaning...

Not if every possible answer to the question is equally meaningless.

...I find such use of the term "absurd" to be more indicative of incredulity than reasoned thought, where all that is offered is a rather generic and somewhat ill-defined "volitional non-contingent reality"...

If you can think of even one question where all possible answers are not equally meaningless (given the situation where consciousness and volition are illusory and incapable of affecting the material universe) then I might concede your point.

I suppose another way of making my point would be, "If meaningful questions exist, then theism is the only possible epistemically justified explanation for this fact."

[ThatGirlAgain]

From Post 3:

The original discussion (see below) was about interpretation of what a certain scriptural verse meant.
...

I'm totally cool with that, and linked to the post in question to ensure folks had the full context of what was being gotten at, as well as using ellipses to ensure folks knew there was more being said.

Now I'm trying to determine whether a part of that entire notion should be considered reasonable and rational.

The OP is misguided.

I present Post 2 and Post 4*, presented by theists in support of the notion presented in the OP, as evidence that as presented, the OP can be discussed without the "missing" context. *Noting Post 4 was presented after your post.

So, I don't doubt the original post had it's validity in its understanding of someone else's understanding. I seek to determine if the original understanding should be considered reasonable and rational.

Maybe I'd remove the the original poster's name from it, to ensure they're not held to account here in this OP, but as above, I contend the OP is legit.

By referring to a specific post in another thread you are implicitly taking on the context of that post. Bambi originally made it clear that the answer being presented was in the context of being a Christian and the post you quoted just as clearly maintained that context.

What does it mean to be human?

To be human is to be able to discern what is good and what is not. I'm a christian and I strongly believe that this word written in Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.) is what answers the question.

Instead of removing the poster’s name, why not omit the post itself? By taking it out of context you are just coming up with another way of making a “Does God Exist?� thread. Such a thread is certainly legitimate if not exactly original. If you want to participate in some original thinking on the subject, go here where the debate covers both what it means to be human (the subject of the thread you quoted from) and the existence of God. But if you want to talk about the post you quoted, go back to that thread and deal with it in context. As it is, I see no legitimate connection between that post and this thread.

My $.02 anyway.

[Shermana]

From Post 9 here:

Ephesians 2:10 (For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)

I think you have a poor conclusion here. I don't see your point connected to the verse. Let me go a bit further in this verse for you to comprehend. It said " For we are his workmanship" Human is created by a creator.
...

My emboldenizationin'.

For debate:

Is the notion that we are created by a god the most reasonable and rational conclusion to be had?

I'd say yes, I believe the idea that the human form, brain, heart, mind, and all the intricacies involved came about purely from chaotic mutations that stabilized is less credible than the idea of a superior being (aka "god") being responsible for, what appears to me, seems to be similar evidence of design as one would see in. I believe it's irrational to think that all the complex biological processes (and the environment they live in) are the product of anything less than intelligent and designed. I believe to believe that could happen requires a leap of faith leaps and bounds bigger than any Theist argument. I don't see why one cannot rationally view the human body as being "Too complex for random mutation alone".

One problem is that many "believers" may consider something "evidence" to support a rational conclusion that the "non-believer" may shrug off as "god of the gaps" and presume to believe that a naturalistic conclusion is correct in the end. Without the idea of a "god" or "intelligence", one is left with what is otherwise an extremely improbably scenario, when I say extremely I mean like it's more probable that I will win the lottery every time I play. The sheer amount of "Coincidence" that would have to be involved just for the Earth to not spiral into the sun, in my opinion, is too great to be considered credible as the result of "natural forces".

So the issue is what one considers 'evidence" in the first place. The Watchmaker arguments of Leibniz and Newton may not fly with the non-believer, but they fly for the believer. Why? Is Leibniz somehow wrong? Is there an alternative?

I think one issue "non-believers" may feel is of no concern is an alternative. Because their criteria for them to believe in an "intelligent higher force", or the "Unmoved Mover" in Aristotle's version has not met, why is the evidence no longer valid? Why is NOT valid to believe that the evidence seems to suggest design and intelligence in the construction of the human form, let alone the life form in general?

One may associate the "Unmoved Mover" (UM) as an imaginary being without "proof", but what kind of proof do they want? What kind of explanation must one give to show that the human body did not likely "evolve" on its own forces to where it is today? Many "Evolutionists" were Theistic evolutionists, even if you disagree with the ToE and "Macro-evolution" (a subject well discussed on this board), there is still enough reason to conclude that "scientists" and "Naturalists" have not universally ruled out the idea of a higher power directing this alleged "process".

In the end, if one cannot provide an alternative example that addresses all the snags and pitfalls in their own alternative model (and non-fallaciously, as in having the actual data and not relying on unprovable "expert" opinions), their grounds for dismissing one's religion and beliefs is shot. All they can say is "You cannot prove it according to my criteria of evidence". But what is the criteria of evidence? I've asked this question to many Atheists, I've not gotten a real answer of what they'd consider "evidence" yet. Most of them just want an Angel or something to fly down and tell them or something, but I've yet to see Atheist discussion of what they'd consider solid evidence of design in the first place to be, that they wouldn't just brush off as a "naturalistic" explanation even in the face of all the unknown facts and issues and controversies.