Did Nothing Create Everything?

[SetiAlpha6]

One of the things I could never understand and one that drove me away from any form of religious dogma is the question:
How can any one claim that a new born child is sinful?
That the child is an abomination to God?
View attachment 3080
Galaxy Child c/o ZPT
The only answer I can come up with is because it is human desire to control others via religious dogma that is in fact the sin.
It is the will to power over others that is the abomination or the sin.

I love your post!!! AMEN!!!

Children certainly are innocent in the eyes of God, no matter what wicked men in twisted versions of Christianity teach.

 

[paddoboy]

Children certainly are innocent in the eyes of God, no matter what wicked men in twisted versions of Christianity teach.

Yet we have just recently had 4 children killed in Sydney[three siblings and a cousin] by an apparent drunk that ran off the road in his car.
Your magical spaghetti monster did not do too much to protect these innocent souls.

 

[(Q)]

I love your post!!! AMEN!!!

Children certainly are innocent in the eyes of God, no matter what wicked men in twisted versions of Christianity teach.

There's a version of Christianity that isn't twisted? Didn't know that.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

From my perspective the only major bone of contention is that your version ascribes deliberateness, volition, sentience and free will to an entity that science does not.

The universe is seen by science to be devoid of freewill and although as a whole it may be self determining it lacks volition and the capacity to make decisions.
It certainly appears to be intelligent in construction but the question of whether this is by design or by natural evolution has yet to be addressed adequately by either side of the discussion and probably cannot be determined in the foreseeable future.

The challenge for you is to demonstrate using sound reasoning that this God of yours is capable of making a decision beyond reliance on faith ( belief )
Of course you will not be able to satisfy this challenge adequately and this is understandable and just because you can not does not in any way minimize the potential that at some time in the future science may indeed discover a new way of looking at volition and holistic universal decision making. After all to be a scientist is to accept that there is much that is not known at this time.

How ever to claim by way of faith only, and attempt to evangelize that faith may not be appropriate on a science forum.

The "God Hypothesis" as I call it, has been utilized throughout human history as a way of explaining the unknown. Where the imagination is used to generate a construct to aid in the explaining of unknown phenomena. This of course is very normal human behavior and scientists use similar all the time by way of hypothesis, leading to theory etc..

Very! Well! Said!!!

I do believe that there is real and clear evidence for God both in the written historical record and in physical evidence on the Earth.

And I provided a small part of it for review earlier in this thread.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Yet we have just recently had 4 children killed in Sydney[three siblings and a cousin] by an apparent drunk that ran off the road in his car.
Your magical spaghetti monster did not do too much to protect these innocent souls.

You and I both hate hearing about things like this.

But I know God loves those children and He will give them eternal life with Him.

I don’t blame God for the freewill actions of man.

Atheism provides no hope for children like these, not even a future hope of justice. It only provides despair of living now, and eternal death in the future. Absolutely no hope to their parents.

It provides no basis of value for those children, no basis of morality, it cannot even say that what happened to them was wrong.

On what basis, according to Atheism alone, are their deaths wrong or evil?

They are only random bio chemical robots according to Naturalism, Science, and Atheism.

According to science they were only cosmic accidents destroyed by another cosmic accident.

How sad that we have become like this.

 

[DaveC426913]

On what basis, according to Atheism alone, are their deaths wrong or evil?

They are only random bio chemical robots according to Naturalism, Science, and Atheism.

No they're not. Where did you ever get such silly ideas?
They're people. All people have value.
Atheists care about the flesh and blood and minds that are living, suffering and dying right here on Earth.
You don't need a sky daddy to care about that.

According to science they were only cosmic accidents destroyed by another cosmic accident.

That's what makes them precious and valuable.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Children certainly are innocent in the eyes of God, no matter what wicked men in twisted versions of Christianity teach.

I do believe that there is real and clear evidence for God both in the written historical record and in physical evidence on the Earth.

Would that evidence include the destruction of children and innocent animals during the great floods of Noah's time?
There are numerous mentions of children being slaughtered by the Bibles God.

Not to mention supposedly crucifying his only son on a cross after a flogging simply because he was unable to find another way to get his message across..
Do you think a father should behave that way?
Christianity is founded on violence just like most religions.

Try:
Religion dis-empowers humans where as Science empowers humans.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

No they're not. Where did you ever get such silly ideas?
They're people. All people have value.
Atheists care about the flesh and blood and minds that are living, suffering and dying right here on Earth.
You don't need a sky daddy to care about that.


That's what makes them precious and valuable.

Atheists are usually wonderful, loving, caring people like you are.

All I am suggesting is that Scientific Naturalism provides no basis for Atheists to behave in those same ways that you do.

An atheist could just as easily, as a few do, behave completely in an opposite way to the loving way that you do, and Scientific Naturalism would have no way to provide a moral foundation to bring them back from the brink of harming others.

If this is wrong, please provide me with the moral foundation that Scientific Naturalism provides for the human race. And I will learn something.

 

[billvon]

Children certainly are innocent in the eyes of God, no matter what wicked men in twisted versions of Christianity teach.

Sounds like you have managed to break away from parts of Christianity! Congratulations for thinking for yourself in at least that area. Let's hope that continues.

 

[billvon]

(duplicate)

 

[DaveC426913]

All I am suggesting is that Scientific Naturalism provides no basis for Atheists to behave in those same ways that you do.

Exactly.

Atheists do good by others because they are good people, care about their neighbors and have a conscience.
Not because someone told them they have to.

Now, which of those two would you say has the stronger moral standard?
The ones who do the right thing because it's the right thing to do?
Or the ones who do the right thing because someone told them it's what they decree?

Note the eerie correlation here:
Children are told what to. They require oversight.
Adults know themselves what to do. They are self-correcting.

An atheist could just as easily, as a few do, behave completely in an opposite way to the loving way that you do

As could - and do - believers.

 

[DaveC426913]

The implication that atheists might be - and more specifically are - less morally strong than theists does not fit the data.

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com...make-up-0-1-of-the-federal-prison-population/
"Using their self-reported data, there are currently 197 atheists in federal prison out of 191,322 total prisoners. If you do the math, that’s 0.10%. "

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/
"Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019 show that 4% of American adults say they are atheists when asked about their religious identity"

This is a simplistic view of the issue, no doubt, but still, the math suggests that theists are 40 times more likely to be criminal than atheists.

 

[billvon]

All I am suggesting is that Scientific Naturalism provides no basis for Atheists to behave in those same ways that you do.

Google "utilitarianism."

An atheist could just as easily, as a few do, behave completely in an opposite way to the loving way that you do

Agreed. So could a religious fundamentalist. Indeed, the evidence suggests that they do that more often than atheists.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Would that evidence include the destruction of children and innocent animals during the great floods of Noah's time?
There are numerous mentions of children being slaughtered by the Bibles God.

Yes it does include numerous circumstances where mankind became so wicked that God had to remove them from the Earth to protect the innocent from immediate or future moral corruption.

It is called Justice for the wicked, Protection for the innocent. I am sure you have heard of it before. The innocent are accepted by God and given eternal life.

I would guess that you also might kill in self defense if there was no other way to protect your own innocent children from evil and corruption, even death. At times these wicked people sacrificed there own children at the altars to demons. Something that you, like God, also would agree is detestable.

Very sad indeed. If not for the wickedness of man none of this would have been needed.

Strange that people play both sides and fain outrage at God, both for not taking action against evil, and also for taking action against it. Creating an impossible win situation for God.

Would you sit in judgment of God?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Would you sit in judgment of God?

always!

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is called Justice for the wicked, Protection for the innocent.

so drowning countless babies in the great floods was to protect them?
Do you know what it's like to drown and be resuscitated?
Have you ever endured a suffocation event and survived?
How did it feel to suffer?
... and then how would it feel if it was because of someone else forcing you to drown or suffocate?

Imagine millions of children drowning simply because a God got pissed off at his own creation...

Very sad indeed. If not for the wickedness of man none of this would have been needed.

Is your God responsible for his creation or not?

 

[billvon]

Yes it does include numerous circumstances where mankind became so wicked that God had to remove them from the Earth to protect the innocent from immediate or future moral corruption.

By killing the innocent by the millions?

By that measure, the 9/11 terrorists were justified in their war to fight Western corruption (drinking, violence, sexual immorality, greed etc.) that was taking over their land. They were certainly more moral than the Old Testament God, who killed millions of innocents, instead of just thousands.

It is called Justice for the wicked, Protection for the innocent. I am sure you have heard of it before. The innocent are accepted by God and given eternal life.

So you are saying that it is OK to kill the innocent because they are going to heaven? Wow. Well, there goes any objection you could possibly have against abortion. Who would object to giving eternal life to fetuses?

 

[(Q)]

Yes it does include numerous circumstances where mankind became so wicked that God had to remove them from the Earth to protect the innocent from immediate or future moral corruption.

It is called Justice for the wicked, Protection for the innocent. I am sure you have heard of it before.

Would you sit in judgment of God?

I've never seen God, but I would sit in judgment of those who say one thing and then another in contradiction. We heard a story of children being killed by a drunk driver, yet you said, "I don’t blame God for the freewill actions of man." And now, you say God removes those men of free will to protect the innocent.

Just not protecting innocent children when it really matters. So much for justice for the wicked.

Like I said, I have yet to hear a version of Christianity that wasn't twisted.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Exactly.

Atheists do good by others because they are good people, care about their neighbors and have a conscience.
Not because someone told them they have to.

Now, which of those two would you say has the stronger moral standard?
The ones who do the right thing because it's the right thing to do?
Or the ones who do the right thing because someone told them it's what they decree?

Note the eerie correlation here:
Children are told what to. They require oversight.
Adults know themselves what to do. They are self-correcting.


As could - and do - believers.

I agree with you...

The ones who do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, have the stronger moral standard.

That, of course, has always been God’s desire for all mankind.

Perhaps you agree with God on that one?

 

[James R]

SetiAlpha6:

Dogs are weaker genetically than they were as wolves, they are less genetically adaptable, less able to adapt and survive.

Nonsense.

Count how many dogs there are in the world right now, then count how many wolves there are. Then try to tell me that wolves are a more successful species than dogs. Dogs are really just domesticated wolves, anyway.

Their original genetic code has been diluted and weakened over time. That is how evolution works.

Face it. You have no way to define what the "dilution" of a gene would even mean, nor what a "weakening" of the "genetic code" would entail. This is just word salad from you.

If 95% of all species have gone extinct that only leaves 5% remaining to go extinct.

The overwhelming trend toward extinction is plain and simple, even obvious. There is no other reasonable conclusion. It is only a matter of time before all life genetically fails and all life goes extinct.

Life hasn't genetically failed. Genetic success has been a continuous success story for 3.9 billion years now, and it isn't looking likely to stop any time soon.

How many Species have even gone extinct in your own lifetime? This trend is undeniable.

It is true that human beings are currently carrying out a massive, uncontrolled experiment with the environment, and that is causing more than the usual amount of extinction. But that has nothing to do with any kind of "genetic" failure, other than, perhaps, the inability of evolution to adapt the genes fast enough to keep pace with the environmental changes that are going on.

Evolution results in extinction.

What a bizarre statement. Actually meaningless.

As species adapt to survive they become less able to adapt in the future.

That's not true.

They become genetically weaker over time.

Tell me how you are measuring genetic "strength", exactly.

Suppose I put two species side by side. How are you going to tell me which species is genetically "stronger"?

More of the original Genetic Code is lost. The dog is an excellent example of this.

It's like you think that dogs are wolves with something subtracted. They are not. Essentially, they are domesticated wolves.

Species were created with selectable options within their original genetic code to enable survival of the species over time.

Selectable options?

You're making stuff up as you go along, aren't you? Admit it.