Starboy

Jack, what is the point of using bible quotes for arguing the nature of god? Why would anyone find that convincing? Why would you wish to argue with anyone that found it convincing? There is no document that man could create that could convey the mind of an infinite being. What is the point?

Starboy

NOGO

By keeping everything simple even Santa Claus may exist.
However this world is not that simple.


Ed:
But sperm and ova come from bodies that belong to persons ...

The sperms that I make come from the material I ingest when I eat. It is impersonal dead matter otherwise known as food.

My body restructures this material and produces sperms.

So what comes from my body is not the sperm itself but its structure.

The structure is created by my body.
The structure is in fact blindly copied.

It is the structure which is human and which results in "the person" but the molecules which are used to build the structure are impersonal.

So your body takes impersonal material (food) and converts it to sperms which when combined to ova results in the personal.

The question is this:
Is there something other than chemical processes that occur inside the body in order to produce sperms and ova?

I say that there isn't and there is absolutely no evidence that there is anything else going on.

If you know of any evidence that somehow God waves a magic wand everytime a sperm is produce to make it live then let us know.

Until then the conclusion can only be that our bodies generate life from inanimate matter.

The proof is rather simple to see.
The population of the world keeps on increasing.
More and more inanimate matter is being transformed into living beings.

Ed

The existence of the Christian God and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:

jtb: Biblical evidence AGAINST this "fact" is clear from the FACT that God was unable to adequately punish the Amalekites in Hell (because God and Hell do not actually exist).

Huh?

Quote:

Ed: No, see above. It is not murder because they were being punished for their sins that Judge of the Universe knew about, ie probable endorsement of one the most serious sins you can commit. It was capital punishment. jtb: Nope. According to you, I can freely celebrate the massacre of God's chosen people with negligible risk of capital punishment. According to you, the omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, who supposedly has the power to act at will, won't get off his lazy butt to actually kill anybody for this, except maybe once every few centuries.

That is because he is merciful. He doesnt always give you what you deserve.

Quote:

Ed: Again Deut. 24:16 refers to the government of Israel when not explicitly commanded by God to do otherwise. jtb: Evidence that this was specifically and exclusively directed at the government of Israel: { }

All scholars both liberal and conservative agree that the laws in Deuteronomy were written to provide guidance to Hebrew society and government.

Quote:

jtb: Evidence of the "specifically commanded by God to do otherwise" exception clause: { } Let me guess: this clause was present in the original Hebrew but omitted by those incompetent translators, right?

It is rationally assumed given the Amalekite event.

Quote:

jtb: No matter how things were arranged the guy raped the girl. If this were a crime the guy would have been punished as rapists are punished in our current society. Ed: He WAS punished, her brother killed him. jtb: Let me repeat the key phrase here, with bolding to help you overcome your reading comprehension problem: No matter how things were arranged the guy raped the girl. If this were a crime the guy would have been punished as rapists are punished in our current society. The rapist was NOT punished by the law. He was murdered two years later by the victim's brother. The rape was NOT a crime.

Fraid so, given that the laws in the OT are not exhaustive, it is covered under Deut. 22:23-24. Of course, unfortunately God's laws were not always enforced.

Quote:

Ed: No, the punishment for rape was the same as for adultery, because the understanding of the commandment against adultery was that ANY sex outside marriage was considered a breach of this commandment. jtb: David had 100 concubines. God didn't mind.

Concubines were basically considered equivalent to wives.

Quote:

Ed: But Tamar apparently was willing to forgive the rape and marry him as many women at the time were willing to do because of the dangerous situation for single women. jtb:...dangerous in a society where rape was legal.

Dangerous because in surrounding societies rape was legal and there was no police force.

Quote:

Ed: You are partially right however, in that rape was probably not considered as serious a crime in ancient times as we do today because of the influence of Christian morality on our society and since just surviving was the main concern of the ancients and unmarried women were not as likely to survive as a married woman. jtb: Unmarried women should have been able to survive just as well as married ones.

Unfortunately see above why not, their husband was like their police force.

Quote:

jtb: But, yes, modern society is far more civilized that that of these "morally superior" barbarians. And so were most other barbarian societies. The Celts had female warriors: they would not tolerate the rape of unmarried Celtic women.

Neither would hebrew men and women, see Deut. 22:23-24.

beyelzu

Ed,

you talk in circles, making the same irrational arguments time and again.

jtb,

why do you bother talking to Ed. Isnt it pointless, he is never going to concede a point. He just fabricates and muddies the water over and over again.


jtb,

I do admire your staying power:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Ed

I am not referring to things like sticks, they are not intrinsically related to personhood. I am referring to things like personal relationships, personal communication, and personal intelligence.

Quote:

jtb: Nor is there any empirically detectable "essence" that clearly makes a human being a "person" while a chimpanzee is not. It's just a label, like "American" is.

Not physically detectable but empirically inferred. Humans have a true will, conscience, and abstract reasoning. These can all be detected by other persons. Chimps do not have these characteristics which are all essential to personhood.

Quote:

jtb: There is no "Law of Conservation of Personhood". There is no scientific or logical principle which prevents the evolution of "personhood".

Fraid so, the Law of Sufficient Cause.

Quote:

Ed: Atheistic evolution is based on impersonal time plus chance, neither of which nor in combination has ever been empirically observed producing persons. jtb: God has never been empirically observed producing persons either. Therefore this cannot happen, right?

No, but persons have, so his being able to do so is a rational assumption.

Quote:

Ed: A hominid fossil is just empirical evidence that some apelike creature lived thousands of years ago. And DNA analysis is just empirical evidence that similar organsims have similar DNA. None of this is empirical evidence that macroevolution has occurred. Macroevolution is actually just a historical extrapolation. jtb: Hominid fossils are empirical evidence that a range of transitional forms between apes and humans existed.

No, you are extrapolating that they are "transitions", their actual "transitioning" has never been observed.

Quote:

jtb: And DNA analysis is evidence that humans and apes share much of the SAME DNA. This even includes genetic defects such as the "broken" gene for vitamin C synthesis and so forth: we share the same defects in our DNA. This IS empirical evidence for the relationship. We have EVERYTHING that we should expect to have, and NOTHING that contradicts this.

Yes, it is empirical evidence for a relationship but the relationship could just as easily be that they have the same designer rather than that one descended from the other.

Quote:

jtb: If "similar creatures have similar DNA", then please explain why we are genetically CLOSER to ordinary fish (e.g. cod) than lampreys are. This is exactly the sort of counter-intuitive result that evolution predicts. As we are descended from fish, we have a more recent common ancestor with these fish than lampreys do: they branched off earlier.

For one thing we both have bones, lampreys are cartilagenous fish. Humans and bony fish also have circulatory systems very different from lampreys and there are other examples. Similar DNA is needed to produce these things in common.

Quote:

Ed: Six year olds can do abstract reasoning, chimps cannot. What are near-human levels of consciousness? Although chimps seem to use a very simple symbolic sign language, they have yet to be observed using syntax which is the foundation any true abstract language. jtb: You are wrong. Chimps are as capable of these things as human children are. They can handle abstract reasoning and syntax.

Evidence?

Quote:

jtb: Incidentally, you haven't answered my question: WHY IS GOD GOOD? Ed: He is good because His moral character is good. jtb: YET AGAIN you have refused to answer the question! This is the same non-answer you gave earlier!

Your character is what determines your moral behavior. Given that, how is that non answer?

Quote:

jtb: WHY is his moral character "good"? In other words: WHY IS GOD GOOD? If you cannot answer the question, then why not just ADMIT that there is no rational basis for morality in your worldview?

We don't know why his character is good. Just because we don't know why He is good doesn't make the existence of his good moral character which is our basis for morality an irrational basis.

Mad Kally

Did god start off as a monkey?

beyelzu

Mad Kally,

Does Ed ever talk to you?

He mostly ignores me. Not that he says much anyway.

NOGO

Ed,

Here is another element of the Amalekite debate.

One part of morality which is very much reflected in the Bible is the idea that a punishment should fit the crime. If your neighbour brakes your window, you cannot, as punishment, burn his house down.

The Bible puts it this way... "an eye for an eye". The idea was that if someone poked your eye out then the punishment can be the same or something equivalent.

For the case of the Amalekites here is the crime....


"all who were lagging behind ..."
So we are talking about a small part of the whole community.
If this had been half the community then they would not be "lagging behind" rather the others would be up ahead.

The puniishment on the other hand is totally disproportionate.


This is a genocide ... for the stated reason.

Even if 400 years did not separate these events the punishment is far too great for the crime commited.
Even if 400 years did not pass one would expect that only the responsible people would be punished.
Even if 400 years had not passed this would still be an immoral act of revenge.

Robert G. Ingersoll

Well, yeah, it should seem obvious to the disinterested reader of the babble that the babble god is a giant, flaming murdering asshole, similar to Hitler.

But the babble is a book of fiction, so the babble god is imaginary. Only a fool would think otherwise. So why this long drawn out debate over the obvious?

winstonjen

Because Ed refuses to admit defeat and accept the obvious. Someone get into his binary code!