Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is

[paarsurrey1]

Revealed-Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is "man-made", is it so?

Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 81 by Willum]

Post #2 for you, Willum

You are correct that I have questions.

You concluded that man is man-made, that the Bible is man-made, and had degraded prominent Bible characters. Although true that we were born of a father and a mother, what man made the first man and woman? There's much wisdom in the Bible that hardly appears as if from the characters in the state as you described them.

What made the first haploid crayfish? (Evolution in our time - look it up.)

Would you please inform me of what significance has your conclusion to you and me? Does it in any way help us toward our destiny? What do you do with the fact that there are people that have made peace with God, realized the promises of the Judeo-Christian faith, and are well satisfied? What is your ultimate hope? Are you ready for your final grade from Mr. Reality when the time comes? I certainly want to make sure I have a decent grade!

Well, I could do so myself, and not believe a word of it. I can make peace with Herman Munster, or a piece of toast with the same results. Ultimiately it is ME that I am really making peace with me.

More questions: Laws like, "thou shalt not kill, love your neighbor, and honor thy father and mother," are these man-made? If yes, who deserves the credit? Who's getting the royalties for the book that's was always the no. 1 best seller called the Bible? What do you think about children that think they are able to do well with no need for their parents? Although one may find almost anything about God and the Bible on the internet and other places, are you sure you can trust just any of these things?

I think it is telling that Jews and Christians are the only people who need to be TOLD these things are bad. Everybody else knows this without being told. That Jews and Christians need to be told this, demonstrates to me that, there is something inherently wrong with their personalities that needs the special emphasis, the rest of us do not require.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 91 by Willum]

Hello Willum,

I will answer your last post first. Go on with your way of thinking. We are well aware that tuition at the school of hard knocks is very, very high.

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 87 by H.sapiens]

Post #1

Hello Hsapiens,

Since there is no evidence of any god, only hand waving and sophistry, the expense of knowledge of god is zero.

As for the hand waving and sophistry you spoke of, I take it that you are speaking of activity that commonly takes place in church meetings that you are no longer part of. Am I right?

If that's the case, I have a little surprise for you. Would you believe there's scripture that supports your move away? Jesus says, "I would thou wert cold or hot (Revelation 3:15)." You apparently chose to become cold, thus putting yourself in a better state in His sight than that of lukewarmness that He hates, thus freeing yourself of endless religious busywork that produces limited righteous fruit if any. Such limited fruit shows little of the face of God to the point of incurring doubt of His presence. Scripture does not speak well of busywork that keeps people too occupied to hear the still small quiet and peaceful voice of God.

The cold state that's away from the rigmarole increases the possibility of openness for Jesus to speak to conscience. Only make sure to cut the noise and listen. There's more for you in my posts to Danmark and DrNoGods.

You might start with demonstrating that your Jesus existed and then show that he said anything of the sort.

With your trust in the declared word, He will open your eyes to His presence.


Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 89 by Danmark]

Post #2

Hello Danmark,

God is not a murderer; God does not exist; however, the 'god' character of the Old Testament is the most prolific mass murderer of all of literature. He proved that in Act I of that compilation with the flood myth where 99.9999% of humanity was destroyed.

Think about a judge that tries to save himself from the deep sorrow for having to put his own son away for life for a crime worthy of such by pardoning him to let him go free. What reputation would you think that judge would have? Would he be better than God?

If God likewise excused those that He destroyed for the horrific sins they committed with no remorse, what reputation do you think God would have to us? One bit of impurity in God's character would wipe out His holiness. Have you forgotten God's forgiving the repentant city of Nineveh in the book of Jonah? Jonah was angry that God did not destroy the city.

Would you mind if I add some of my thoughts to this discussion? I know I could be wrong.

I have often read remarks of others similar to yours communicating the thought that "mythical" God is a cruel, merciless murderer. But scripture tells us, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one (Romans 3:12)." How then may any of us judge God that knows far more than we do when none of us are good?

Moments occur within all of us when we see within ourselves the raw, devastating truth of the innate bankruptcy in our ability to please God especially after years trying to "get it right." This may either lead to despair or to confession with petition for mercy.

If despair, and with knowledge of the consequences of life ending in the depraved state and a want for relief from fear from the horrid anticipation of judgment, is that the reason that some choose to deny the reality and existence of God?

On the other hand, an individual may honestly admit the truth of his hopeless condition and ask God for mercy that He (God) is more than willing to grant. I earlier repeated the scripture that true worshippers do so in spirit and truth. The truthful confession is the beginning of such worship. But this is impossible without trust. Do you remember the thief on the cross? Unable to get off the cross to make up for his wrong, honest with his guilt, he trusted and ask to be brought into paradise. God much prefer to save than to judge.

'Can't see God? Scripture promises that the pure in heart sees God (Matthew 5:8). Honest confession is the product of a purified heart.

Here's a statement of yours from post 86:

"Testimony" is only valid when it reflects an observation, something that any person in the position of the testifier would be able to observe. You are conflating your opinion with objective observation.

The testimonies I spoke of are from observation and experience. Not only do I observe the words you say on this post as I read them, I experience your reactions from your words. From this I know and may testify that you are a real person.

Please read my posts to Hsapiens and DrNoGods.

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 88 by DrNoGods]

Post #3

Hello DrNoGods,

There are many god-believing people who are happy to accept the theory of evolution as a correct explanation of how life diversified on this planet over time, but in their view it is simply the mechanism their god of choice chose for the process. For example, Catholics who support "theistic evolution." So it is possible to believe in a god being and evolution simultaneously, but there is no empirical evidence for the existence of the former and a great deal for the latter.

It is unfortunate that some Bible believers unknowingly compromise the Bible by trying to shoehorn evolutionary dogma into it. Inclusion of such undermines vital foundational knowledge such as the fact that God made all things good, the fall that corrupted the good, the offer of reconciliation from the fall, and much more.

I have listened to a supposed Bible believing evolutionist that engaged in a creation vs. evolution debate. He unknowingly flunked himself in his concluding statement by stating his support for evolution while believing that the Biblical creation account is wrong. How was he able to call himself a believer in God while not believing the foundational Bible account of the beginning?

Disbelief of the Bible is the payload of evolutionary dogma. The teaching of evolution completely destroyed the faith and ministry of Evangelist Charles Templeton whose ministry was as powerful as Billy Graham's. Even Billy Grahams was unable to restore him.

Have scientists greater authority than God? They too are as human as we are and are students of the Bible as we are. The Bible was never meant to be a football to be kicked around, but to be a trusted, vital guide for our redemption. Although debates may sometimes be helpful in clearing up misunderstanding, Biblical truth was long settled beyond debate (Psalm 119:89).

However, are you saying there are times when witnesses aren't necessary?

Most definitely. There are countless examples of this assuming you are referring to human witnesses. To claim otherwise would be equivalent to saying that humans could have no knowledge of anything prior to a few hundred thousand years ago (or a few million depending on the definition of "human"). But that is very clearly not the case. For example, we know with certainty that dinosaurs existed (we have fossils), and that they died out tens of millions of years before any human existed (we can date the fossils).

We have more than fossils that point to the past existence of dinosaurs. Cave drawings are one example.

You appear to imply that carbon dating is infallible proof that dinosaurs died out tens of millions of years ago and that witnesses of the past are thus unnecessary. This "proof" is so infallible that those with opposing interpretations of the fossils should be counted out? The Bible that also claims infallibility informs us of a supporting witness of the past (God) that the evolutionary belief doesn't have.

Is the above implication scientifically kosher? Is "infallible" carbon dating a god that dictates to all of us? As a student is concerned about his final grade in school that affects graduation, aren't we also concerned about Mr. Reality's final grade that cannot support both sides? We have our choice as for which of these opposing "truths" we will accept.

Violations of these scriptures during scientific work would be violations of science. Is this precious ancient wisdom worthy to be discarded as if mythical and obsolete? Please?

This is a claim that the scriptures are to be taken as absolute truth, and any scientific efforts that disagree with them or show them to be false are incorrect by definition. That is not how science works. It is not a violation of science to arrive at any result which disagrees with some article of scripture. Science makes observations and measurements of the natural world and attempts to explain them within the framework of established rules, laws, axioms etc. that exist at any given time. There is no connection to any scripture, or any requirement that scripture even be considered.

Are you trying with all of these words only to tell me the little truth that an erroneous scientific measurement due to tampering with standards is not a violation of science?

Where do we find appreciation, respect, and dignity without the Creation model? By what pattern should parents teach their children?

These things are innate in social animals or else they would not have survived. Have you ever seen a flock of sheep, or a herd of cattle, all fighting with each other and killing their young because they don't have access to (for example) the Ten Commandments? Morality does not come from religion.

Aren't you familiar with animals in the wild that steal prey? As for people, aren't you familiar with commonplace unthinkable acts of people in lands not protected by laws similar to our Bible based laws?

Please read my posts to Hsapiens and Danmark.

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 95 by Erexsaur]

Hello again, DrNoGods,

Addendum for post # 95

I have a little more to say about your paragraph below.

Most definitely. There are countless examples of this assuming you are referring to human witnesses. To claim otherwise would be equivalent to saying that humans could have no knowledge of anything prior to a few hundred thousand years ago (or a few million depending on the definition of "human"). But that is very clearly not the case. For example, we know with certainty that dinosaurs existed (we have fossils), and that they died out tens of millions of years before any human existed (we can date the fossils).

One way of knowing a theory is correct is because it lines up with scientific laws. What scientific law does the theory of evolution lines up with? Even though a violation of one law is sufficient to debunk a theory, I can name you two- the law of thermodynamics that tells us that things decay with time and the law of probability.

Is anyone home?

Earl

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 95 by Erexsaur]

Biblical truth was long settled beyond debate (Psalm 119:89).

Referencing a bible verse to justify a claim by the bible is not support for the claim, but I won't comment on the preaching aspects of the post. However ...

You appear to imply that carbon dating is infallible proof that dinosaurs died out tens of millions of years ago and that witnesses of the past are thus unnecessary.

Carbon dating is only valid for things no more than roughly 50,000 years old, so it is useless for dating dinosaur bones or anything nearly that old. I don't know if you are simply making the common mistake of using the term "carbon dating" for the correct term radiometric dating (which includes general isotopic combinations, specifically those with half lives relevant to the problem being addressed), or if you really mean carbon dating (in which case there is no relevance to dinosaurs at all), but there is no doubt about when the dinosaurs died out.

We have more than fossils that point to the past existence of dinosaurs. Cave drawings are one example.

Cave drawings of dinosaurs??? I don't think there is any such thing. The early homo species (sapiens, neanderthals) who made cave drawings certainly had no knowledge of the existence of dinosaurs, so it is highly unlikely that they could have made drawings of them.

Are you trying with all of these words only to tell me the little truth that an erroneous scientific measurement due to tampering with standards is not a violation of science?

Is this referring to radiometric dating again? This is proven technology based on well understood principles, and it doesn't involve any "tampering with standards." If various results from radiometric dating did not conflict with your interpretation of your religion would you be so quick to claim it is invalid? Do you believe that fission bombs were designed and built from an understanding of atomic physics, and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945?

Aren't you familiar with animals in the wild that steal prey? As for people, aren't you familiar with commonplace unthinkable acts of people in lands not protected by laws similar to our Bible based laws?

Sure, but the ecological balances that are set up in nature between predator and prey animals are fairly well understood. And human beings routinely commit unthinkable acts regardless of the laws of the country they live in (the Austin bomber is one example just from today). I don't see the relevance to the point that social animals (including humans) can function very well without religious instructions on how to behave. In fact, there are plenty of recent examples where religious beliefs lead directly to the "unthinkable acts" you mention.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 96 by Erexsaur]

One way of knowing a theory is correct is because it lines up with scientific laws. What scientific law does the theory of evolution lines up with? Even though a violation of one law is sufficient to debunk a theory, I can name you two- the law of thermodynamics that tells us that things decay with time and the law of probability.

Is anyone home?

Evolution is accepted as a valid scientific theory because it DOES "line up" with observation and scientific analysis. Are you claiming that the theory of evolution in some way violates a law of thermodynamics (which one ... none say anything about how things decay with time), or of probability (again ... what "law of probability" is breached by the theory of evolution?).

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics):

The four laws of thermodynamics are:

0)Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the concept of temperature.

1) First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind (machines that produce work with no energy input) are impossible.

2) Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind (machines that spontaneously convert thermal energy into mechanical work) are impossible.

3) Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.[2] With the exception of non-crystalline solids (glasses) the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero, and is equal to the natural logarithm of the product of the quantum ground states.

There have been suggestions of additional laws, but none of them achieves the generality of the four accepted laws, and they are not mentioned in standard textbooks.

I think you have a very weak argument, to say the least.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 97 by DrNoGods]

Hello DrNoGods,

Happy Easter as it approaches!

You said,

Referencing a bible verse to justify a claim by the bible is not support for the claim, but I won't comment on the preaching aspects of the post. However ...

But what higher standard of authority is there that I may refer to other than the Bible? I don't know of any, do you? Is there any higher authority to refute the scripture, "let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4)?" Oops! Am I "preaching" again? 'Scuse me! I don't think that man should be ultimate authority, do you?

I have read "preachy preachy" posts presented in ways that I wouldn't. But if it takes a bit of "preaching" as a necessary means to illustrate a core principle to settle an issue, what other way should I go?

Cave drawings of dinosaurs??? I don't think there is any such thing. The early homo species (sapiens, neanderthals) who made cave drawings certainly had no knowledge of the existence of dinosaurs, so it is highly unlikely that they could have made drawings of them.

I thought that inspiration to draw objects comes primarily from what's seen.

The links I included below not only show ancient drawings of dinosaurs that were plentiful, but also of reported sightings of large birdlike creatures that native Americans and others claimed to have seen. Such is where the word, "thunderbird" originated. Marco Polo and some of Alexander's soldiers were reported to have seen animals that fit the description of dinosaurs.

Dragons are spoken of by people of various cultures of the world. Why do they all tend to be reptilian in appearance like dinosaurs? The Biblical book of Job contains a mention of the word, "behemoth" that "moveth his tail like a cedar (Job 40:15-18)." Does that sound like the description of an elephant or a rhino? The word, "dinosaur" originated in 1841.

The sixth link is one of which contains supposed refutations of creationists claims that Indians drew what appeared as dinosaurs. But the least of our intentions as creationists is to deceive. Even if we really were at error, why does our "error" appear to be the cause of such great concern? Is it really necessary that dinosaurs had to have died out 65 mega-years ago?

The Links:

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evi ... /dinosaur/

http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page ... depictions

http://rationalfaith.com/2016/07/why-ha ... dinosaurs/

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... nderbirds/

http://www.forbidden-history.com/dinosaur-movie.html

http://paleo.cc/ce/dino-art.htm

* * *
Answers to post #98:

Evolution is accepted as a valid scientific theory because it DOES "line up" with observation and scientific analysis. Are you claiming that the theory of evolution in some way violates a law of thermodynamics (which one ... none say anything about how things decay with time), or of probability (again ... what "law of probability" is breached by the theory of evolution?).

Where does molecule-to-man evolution line up with observation and scientific analysis, please? Can past events be observed? As for the four statements you repeated in green, where is support for evolution?

You ask what law of probability is breached by evolution? With knowledge of our familiarity with the law of probability, please think of even the simplest of living cells with its immense complexity coming together by random chance. Think of the many necessary conditions needed to be present at the same time for the cell to function. Cells also contain coded information. Is there any such thing as a randomly generated code? How does impersonal chance plan, program, or build anything?

Below is another link to an article that supposedly refutes us creationists about the impossibility of anything complex from randomness. Please note for example the statement,

(from link) "But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials (emphasis added) taking place simultaneously as the oceans…"

I didn't know that mere chance had personality to set up conditions for trying and to expect purposed results.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

* * *
Is anyone else home?

Earl

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 99 by Erexsaur]

Happy Easter as it approaches!

Same to you, although I expect Easter means a little more to you than to me.

But what higher standard of authority is there that I may refer to other than the Bible? I don't know of any, do you? Is there any higher authority to refute the scripture, "let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4)?" Oops! Am I "preaching" again? 'Scuse me! I don't think that man should be ultimate authority, do you?

Since I don't believe in the existence of any gods, I'd have to say that on this planet, man is the ultimate authority. And from the rules for this particular section of the website, the bible cannot be used as an authoritative source to support a claim. Of course there are plenty of other venues where that is not the case (eg. a church), but here it is simply a rule for the Science and Religion section, which makes sense.

I thought that inspiration to draw objects comes primarily from what's seen.

If you've ever been to museum displaying abstract art and similar items, you may change your mind on that.

Dragons are spoken of by people of various cultures of the world. Why do they all tend to be reptilian in appearance like dinosaurs? The Biblical book of Job contains a mention of the word, "behemoth" that "moveth his tail like a cedar (Job 40:15-18)." Does that sound like the description of an elephant or a rhino? The word, "dinosaur" originated in 1841.

All kinds of mythical creatures have been described throughout history ....dragons, sea monsters of all types, etc. But this has no bearing on whether these things exist or not. It is no different than "bigfoot" today. Without some kind of physical evidence, or confirmed visual or photographic evidence, the most reasonable position to take on the existence of bigfoot, or dragons, or sea monsters, is that they don't exist.

Is it really necessary that dinosaurs had to have died out 65 mega-years ago?

No ... this is not some arbitrary date that someone came up with. We know with certainty that the dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. We know this because there have been no dinosaur fossils found that are dated more recently (ie. their presence in the fossil record ended 65 million years ago). When an iridium layer was found around the globe that could also be dated to about 65 million years ago, it was proposed that a large meteorite could have impacted the earth and resulted in the eventual extinction of the dinosaurs (a process that took about 30,000 years or more). This is because large sources of iridium do not occur naturally on earth, distributed in such a manner. It had to come from a meteorite impact.

But this still did not prove that this meteorite actually was the cause of the disturbance that led to the extinction, it just was a hypothesis. Then in 1978 the Chicxulub Crater was discovered and the impact dated to about 65 million years ago. This led further support for the idea that the impact and subsequent atmospheric effects could have been responsible for the extinction event. Eruptions at the Deccan Traps in India at about this same time (they started earlier and continued through the meteorite impact period) are also believed to have contributed.

So the 65 million year time frame for extinction of the dinosaurs is not an arbitrary date ... it was arrived at by considering the above evidence and to date it is the most likely explanation for what killed off the dinosaurs.

Where does molecule-to-man evolution line up with observation and scientific analysis, please? Can past events be observed? As for the four statements you repeated in green, where is support for evolution?

There are volumes of work published on evolution and it is far too large of a subject to even begin to summarize here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... ry_of_life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

And past events can be determined from observation and analysis of the evidence left behind. Are you suggesting that anything not seen by a human being, actually happening, therefore did not happen? Surely not.

You ask what law of probability is breached by evolution? With knowledge of our familiarity with the law of probability, please think of even the simplest of living cells with its immense complexity coming together by random chance. Think of the many necessary conditions needed to be present at the same time for the cell to function. Cells also contain coded information. Is there any such thing as a randomly generated code? How does impersonal chance plan, program, or build anything?

Are you confusing the origin of life, with evolution? Most of the creationist probability arguments I have seen refer to the probability of life arising from nonliving components, and they even get that completely wrong. But evolution does not have anything at all to do with how life originated ... only that it did via some means. So I don't see the connection between probability and evolution, but the last link in your post at least makes the point that there are a great number of potential sites where an abiogenesis event could have occurred, which is correct (and it sounds like you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "trial" in that link ... that is simply an event, not anything like a trial in a court of law). If you had to flip a coin until you got 10 heads in a row, it may take you some time. But if you get 1023 of your friends and you all carry out the process simultaneously, someone will get that result much quicker. That is the point the article is making.

Is anyone else home?

I expect so, but this line of discussion has been carried out here so many times that they may simply be tired of responding.