PROOF that Evolution is a Myth

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Good post...

LOL...I would think it hard not to assume a God, any God is not Omnibenevolent...
Benevolent = accommodating, advantageous, affable, affectionate, all-heart, altruistic, amiable, amicable, approachable, auspicious, beneficent, benign, benignant, big, big-hearted, bleeding heart, bounteous, bountiful, bright, broad-minded, caring, charitable, chivalrous, clement, compassionate, complaisant, comprehending, comradely, congenial, considerate, cordial, courteous, dexter, disinterested, do-good, easy, eleemosynary, encouraging, favorable, forgiving, fortunate, fraternal, friendly, gracious, generous, genial, gentle, good-humored, good, good-natured, greathearted, helpful, heroic, humane, humanitarian, indulgent, intimate, kind, kindly, kind-hearted, lavish, lenient, liberal, lofty, lucky, magnanimous, merciful, mild, neighborly, noble, obliging, openhanded, personal, philanthropic, pleasant, polite, princely, propitious, salutary, self-sacrificing, selfless, sociable, sympathetic, tender, tender-hearted, thoughtful, tolerant, understanding, unselfish, urbane, warm, warm-hearted, well-disposed

Hence, "benevolent" basically means "nice." Hence, "omnibenevolent" = "all nice."...taking it further...desirous of no evil.

As to the family question...I love my wife too and I let her out! Heck I love my pets and treat them the same. But that doesnt make me Omnibenevolent....yet.
Not sure where you want to take the point too...but im all ears and fingers!

The point is that you're trying to argue the non-existance of something you don't beleive in based on premesis that are questionable.

Surely someone who goes on as much as you do should understand that you can't try to argue something based on what you BELIEVE (i.e. have not proof) to be true. There you go again using that Humanist double standard of "You have to prove scientifically before I beleive, but my unscientific methods are good enough to refute your beleifes"

Come on man you know as well as I do that this kind of "Proof" went the way of the dodo with this little tidbit.

"Objects that are heavier should fall faster"
"Oranges are heaveir that grapes"
"Therefore if I drop an orange and a grape at the same time, the orange should hit the ground first"

How'd that one work out?

You can't prove an arguement to be correct untill you prove the premis to be correct. You prove that a god must be omnibenevolent (and that this means elininating evil at any cost), and I'll accept your arguement. Untill then, try to stick to your own standards.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Rathji

More or less, yes. God communicated his commandments through his prophets, apostles and Christ as they ministered on the earth. A large portion of these ministerings can be found in the pages of the Bible. I say a portion because I am sure somewhere something else was written regarding the things that happened that was not abridged into the Bible proper.

Well I'm no anthropologist, but I'm pretty sure people had rules about killing the neighbours, stealing things, shagging someone else's gal and all the other stuff long before anyone heard of this particular Christian god and his bible.

There were successful civilizations before Christianity.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well I'm no anthropologist, but I'm pretty sure people had rules about killing the neighbours, stealing things, shagging someone else's gal and all the other stuff long before anyone heard of this particular Christian god and his bible.

There were successful civilizations before Christianity.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that good and right things came exclusively from the Bible and that none of these ideas existed before Moses came down off of the mountian. Where they actually originated isn't possible to determine. Even if you had access to a Time machine and unlimited resources I highly doubt you could pinpoint the time when society as a whole decided these things.

The point is these things are part of the Christian faith, who originally decided them is irreelevant to this dicussion as far as I am concerned. If you are part of the Cult of the Insane Crack Addicts and happen to beleive that you should not steal. Then your belief in that matter is the same as one of Christian faith. It doesnt mean that you are Christian, it doesn't even mean you like Christians. It does however mean that if you taught someone that they should steal, you would be teaching them a principle of the Christian faith.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The point is that you're trying to argue the non-existance of something you don't beleive in based on premesis that are questionable.

Surely someone who goes on as much as you do should understand that you can't try to argue something based on what you BELIEVE (i.e. have not proof) to be true. There you go again using that Humanist double standard of "You have to prove scientifically before I beleive, but my unscientific methods are good enough to refute your beleifes"

Come on man you know as well as I do that this kind of "Proof" went the way of the dodo with this little tidbit.

"Objects that are heavier should fall faster"
"Oranges are heaveir that grapes"
"Therefore if I drop an orange and a grape at the same time, the orange should hit the ground first"

How'd that one work out?

You can't prove an arguement to be correct untill you prove the premis to be correct. You prove that a god must be omnibenevolent (and that this means elininating evil at any cost), and I'll accept your arguement. Untill then, try to stick to your own standards.

actually IF you cared to actually read the post in which I posted that info...you will note that I did not suggest they were my beliefs....
actual words were..." What say you about this......(Not my words and not necessarily all of my thoughts)...but certainly thought provoking."

That was it buddy...thought provoking material meant to create a conversation about an OMNIMAX God. As usual you come out with the guns a blazing because the name Cheese precedes the post. Unfortunately you dont own more than a water pistol and your comments are as inane as usual and never add anything of substance to a thread. I dont think I mentioned anything about science in any of these posts...but yes I do believe that science explains FAR more than any religion can hope to...and eventually will be the demise of many religious organizations.
As I keep saying "Prove your premise of a God"....or further any God or son of the same. Im not arguing it...simply asking for information...which you obviously dont have.
Meanwhile you sit on the fence twiddling your fingers...and doing nothing.
Nice chatting again...for a minute.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that good and right things came exclusively from the Bible and that none of these ideas existed before Moses came down off of the mountian. Where they actually originated isn't possible to determine. Even if you had access to a Time machine and unlimited resources I highly doubt you could pinpoint the time when society as a whole decided these things.

The point is these things are part of the Christian faith, who originally decided them is irreelevant to this dicussion as far as I am concerned. If you are part of the Cult of the Insane Crack Addicts and happen to beleive that you should not steal. Then your belief in that matter is the same as one of Christian faith. It doesnt mean that you are Christian, it doesn't even mean you like Christians. It does however mean that if you taught someone that they should steal, you would be teaching them a principle of the Christian faith.

Im confused....didnt the Christian God create everything? Wasnt he the one who made all of the rules?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The point is these things are part of the Christian faith, who originally decided them is irreelevant to this dicussion as far as I am concerned. If you are part of the Cult of the Insane Crack Addicts and happen to beleive that you should not steal. Then your belief in that matter is the same as one of Christian faith. It doesnt mean that you are Christian, it doesn't even mean you like Christians. It does however mean that if you taught someone that they should steal, you would be teaching them a principle of the Christian faith.

Okay fair enough. By that measure, if you teach your kid not to steal, you are teaching him a principle of the Blackfoot* faith. If you deny yourself the temptation to cheat on your wife, you are following a principle of the Maori faith. Teaching your children the difference between right and wrong is to teach them a principle Zeus laid out thousands of years ago.

You claim our society is based on these rules and they are the rules of Christianity. Maybe they are just the rules of common sense?

*keep in mind that I don't claim to know anything about the Blackfoot, Maoris or Zeus. I'm just working on the assumption that any society that sticks around for any length of time must have accepted some version of these simple principles

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL...I would think it hard not to assume a God, any God is not Omnibenevolent...

Well, certainly in polytheistic religions, gods tend not to be omnibenevolent. It's a catch-22 for relgions: if you're a monotheistic religion, you can't really explain why evil exists. If you're a polytheistic religion, you're can explain evil, but only because your God isn't all-knowing/powerful/benevolent. So you tend to get jealous of the monotheistic town on the other side of the hill.
Christianity tries to have it both ways: they took a small voice from the Telmud, and expanded it into this minor-god character. A good example would be from the story of David, where God pursuaded David to take a census of Israel (a sin). But because the new church didn't want to have stories of God doing evil or controversial things, they transferred the role from God to the newly-promoted Satan. From the original Christ stories, to later books like Revelations, to the satan mythology that Dante invented, Christianity moved fairly quickly away from its monotheistic roots and became a polytheistic religion. Even if only one god is worshipped, there's still a belief in two. Yet despite the promotion of this secondary god, Christians have always maintained the omnipotence of their own God.
Today, there isn't nearly as much belief in satan even amongst christians, largely because there is no real obligation on religion to be logically sound; it is allowed to exist in its own world for the most part, separate from science and logic. Though the pope recently confirmed the existance of hell (really nothing more than a glorified garbage dump outside Jerusalem's city walls in the Telmud), so at least the punishment side of satan is alive and well.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Im confused....didnt the Christian God create everything? Wasnt he the one who made all of the rules?

God existed before Moses came down with the commandments, therefore these beliefs did. Yes he decided the rules the people needed to live by in order to be 'on his good side'.

Since it appears you only want to attack Christians 'baseless beliefs', let me turn the tables on you for a moment and ask you a question.

Can you prove the non-existance of God? If you can prove to me that God does not exist, I will at this moment renounce my faith. Keep in mind that your proof must meet the same requirements that you are asking of people who claim God exists.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Rathji

God existed before Moses came down with the commandments, therefore these beliefs did. Yes he decided the rules the people needed to live by in order to be 'on his good side'.

Since it appears you only want to attack Christians 'baseless beliefs', let me turn the tables on you for a moment and ask you a question.

Can you prove the non-existance of God? If you can prove to me that God does not exist, I will at this moment renounce my faith. Keep in mind that your proof must meet the same requirements that you are asking of people who claim God exists.

Nope I cant...but then I dont believe in him/her/it. Its not up to me to try and prove/disprove. Christians tell everyone that God is the creator and that he speaks to them...so Im assuming it is they that have this proof?
I dont "attack" Christians...I ask hard questions. I didnt attack you...I simply asked you "If the Christian God created everything".
That was based on the fact that you said...
I am not saying that good and right things came exclusively from the Bible and that none of these ideas existed before Moses came down off of the mountian. Where they actually originated isn't possible to determine.
and
The point is these things are part of the Christian faith, who originally decided them is irreelevant to this dicussion as far as I am concerned

I was confused by your quotes, in which you yourself, suggest that you have no idea where the ideas came from.

Rouge suggested some alternatives to your theories...did the Christian God train all of the other worldly religions "before" Christianity came to be?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Well, certainly in polytheistic religions, gods tend not to be omnibenevolent. It's a catch-22 for relgions: if you're a monotheistic religion, you can't really explain why evil exists. If you're a polytheistic religion, you're can explain evil, but only because your God isn't all-knowing/powerful/benevolent. So you tend to get jealous of the monotheistic town on the other side of the hill.
Christianity tries to have it both ways: they took a small voice from the Telmud, and expanded it into this minor-god character. A good example would be from the story of David, where God pursuaded David to take a census of Israel (a sin). But because the new church didn't want to have stories of God doing evil or controversial things, they transferred the role from God to the newly-promoted Satan. From the original Christ stories, to later books like Revelations, to the satan mythology that Dante invented, Christianity moved fairly quickly away from its monotheistic roots and became a polytheistic religion. Even if only one god is worshipped, there's still a belief in two. Yet despite the promotion of this secondary god, Christians have always maintained the omnipotence of their own God.
Today, there isn't nearly as much belief in satan even amongst christians, largely because there is no real obligation on religion to be logically sound; it is allowed to exist in its own world for the most part, separate from science and logic. Though the pope recently confirmed the existance of hell (really nothing more than a glorified garbage dump outside Jerusalem's city walls in the Telmud), so at least the punishment side of satan is alive and well.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Can you prove the non-existance of God?

Why should we?

The burden of proof is on YOU (really, the religious institutions) to provide evidence to support the theory that God is real.

Sure, we can't "disprove" it, but again it's YOUR theory, not ours.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cheese

actually IF you cared to actually read the post in which I posted that info...you will note that I did not suggest they were my beliefs....
actual words were..." What say you about this......(Not my words and not necessarily all of my thoughts)...but certainly thought provoking."

That was it buddy...thought provoking material meant to create a conversation about an OMNIMAX God. As usual you come out with the guns a blazing because the name Cheese precedes the post. Unfortunately you dont own more than a water pistol and your comments are as inane as usual and never add anything of substance to a thread. I dont think I mentioned anything about science in any of these posts...but yes I do believe that science explains FAR more than any religion can hope to...and eventually will be the demise of many religious organizations.
As I keep saying "Prove your premise of a God"....or further any God or son of the same. Im not arguing it...simply asking for information...which you obviously dont have.
Meanwhile you sit on the fence twiddling your fingers...and doing nothing.
Nice chatting again...for a minute.

Your beliefs or not, I think I've given a pretty good answer to the "Paradox" that you've presented. Namely that it isn't a paradox.

As for sitting on the fence, I've never said I don't, and I've never said that it makes a whole lot of sense. what I have said and done is that whichever side of the fence you're on (including the top), that you should at least adhear to the values that you claim to hold most important. In your case it's logic and science, in the other case, it's faith and morality, and in my case, I can see that value of science and a good moral center be it prodvided by religion or so called "Humanist" values.

You throw out obscure quotes and arguements, and when someone actually calls you on anything your usual response is. "Hey those aren't my words".

So use your own words for once, and back them up, don't stand behind what someone else argued or said in the hopes that it'll hold up, and safe in the knowledge that you can allways fall back on "I didn't say that".

You say I never add anything of substance to the thread, but you presented (either as yours, or someone elses doesn't matter), an arguement against an OMNIMAX God, and I gave reasons as to why it was logically incorrect, if that isn't adding something I'm not sure exactly what you want.

If refuting and showing the logical error of the statement that you wanted an explination for is not what you were looking for then please explain to me what kind of response you wanted, and I'll try to provide it.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Your beliefs or not, I think I've given a pretty good answer to the "Paradox" that you've presented. Namely that it isn't a paradox.

As for sitting on the fence, I've never said I don't, and I've never said that it makes a whole lot of sense. what I have said and done is that whichever side of the fence you're on (including the top), that you should at least adhear to the values that you claim to hold most important. In your case it's logic and science, in the other case, it's faith and morality, and in my case, I can see that value of science and a good moral center be it prodvided by religion or so called "Humanist" values.

You throw out obscure quotes and arguements, and when someone actually calls you on anything your usual response is. "Hey those aren't my words".

So use your own words for once, and back them up, don't stand behind what someone else argued or said in the hopes that it'll hold up, and safe in the knowledge that you can allways fall back on "I didn't say that".

You say I never add anything of substance to the thread, but you presented (either as yours, or someone elses doesn't matter), an arguement against an OMNIMAX God, and I gave reasons as to why it was logically incorrect, if that isn't adding something I'm not sure exactly what you want.

If refuting and showing the logical error of the statement that you wanted an explination for is not what you were looking for then please explain to me what kind of response you wanted, and I'll try to provide it.

As I said Mr Shantz...your arguments arent worth the time or space to respond to. They are written solely for the purpose of trying to create a fight with me. That goes back a long way!
You never created a good response or argument...when you do Ill be happy to spend time discussing anything with you.
Fence sitters often Pee off both sides of the argument...because they dont have one.

What are you?
Do you believe or don't you? If you answer with "I don't know," that's a no, because I suspect if you did believe, you'd know it already.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cheese

As I said Mr Shantz...your arguments arent worth the time or space to respond to. They are written solely for the purpose of trying to create a fight with me. That goes back a long way!
You never created a good response or argument...when you do Ill be happy to spend time discussing anything with you.

Your question was "How do you explain this statment"

I answered it by showing that there was a logical error. You don't consider this worth responding to? What exactly would you have considered worth responding to, if an explination as to exaclty why the statement you asked about was a logical fallacy?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Rouge suggested some alternatives to your theories...did the Christian God train all of the other worldly religions "before" Christianity came to be?

Since you seem to be attacking the semantics of what I am saying, let me point out that your understanding of the term Christian is obviously lacking. A Christian is a follower of Christ and his teachings. There was NO such thing as a Christian before Christ was born. So yes, using your terminology there were several religions that were around before Christianity. The God of the Jews is the same God as the Christians. The same commandments (in many cases) are contained in the Law of Moses as in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but many, such as the often quoted 'an eye for an eye' were changed. Jesus promoted forgiveness and not revenge.

If you want to argue about semantics and grammar, you can do it by yourself. I am not about to spend hours explaining myself or forming my explainations into bulletproof logical fortresses. I was trying to simplify a thousand years of theological debate and discovery into a 5 min post on the internet.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You claim our society is based on these rules and they are the rules of Christianity. Maybe they are just the rules of common sense?

*keep in mind that I don't claim to know anything about the Blackfoot, Maoris or Zeus. I'm just working on the assumption that any society that sticks around for any length of time must have accepted some version of these simple principles

They have become norms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28sociology%29 )of society, which I guess could be called common sense. Either way it was almost undoubtedly affected by a thousand years of Christian dominance in the western culture and it's development. Whatever affected what our society accepts as normal, it still falls closely in line with Christian values.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Your question was "How do you explain this statment"

I answered it by showing that there was a logical error. You don't consider this worth responding to? What exactly would you have considered worth responding to, if an explination as to exaclty why the statement you asked about was a logical fallacy?

LOL...no I didnt...this is what I said...

If God is...

a) omniscient - he knows of all evil

b) omnibenevolent - he desires the abscence of evil

c) omnipotent - he has the power to eliminate evil

then why is there evil?

Or better yet....do you believe that your God is not an Omnimax God? You do understand the actual meaning of the words above?

What say you about this......(Not my words and not necessarily all of my thoughts)...but certainly thought provoking.

1. All major religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, .....


My question was...why is there evil?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Since you seem to be attacking the semantics of what I am saying, let me point out that your understanding of the term Christian is obviously lacking. A Christian is a follower of Christ and his teachings. There was NO such thing as a Christian before Christ was born. So yes, using your terminology there were several religions that were around before Christianity. The God of the Jews is the same God as the Christians. The same commandments (in many cases) are contained in the Law of Moses as in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but many, such as the often quoted 'an eye for an eye' were changed. Jesus promoted forgiveness and not revenge.

If you want to argue about semantics and grammar, you can do it by yourself. I am not about to spend hours explaining myself or forming my explainations into bulletproof logical fortresses. I was trying to simplify a thousand years of theological debate and discovery into a 5 min post on the internet.



They have become norms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28sociology%29 )of society, which I guess could be called common sense. Either way it was almost undoubtedly affected by a thousand years of Christian dominance in the western culture and it's development. Whatever affected what our society accepts as normal, it still falls closely in line with Christian values.

My apologies...I had no idea you were talking in semantics, and I certainly did not suggest your grammar was bad. I was simply asking for clarification...and I was hoping not to get a circular explanation.
As to my knowledge of Christianity...well anytime you want that discussion Id be happy to join you....I think I might have more knowledge than youd care to know.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Cheese

My question was...why is there evil?

I answered this in a previous post

Originally Posted by Rathji

Free Will

Free will is just that, free choice to do what you want. Despite God knowing what you will do, it doesn't change the fact that it is your choice. No one is forcing you to do what you are doing. You always have a choice. Without evil, there would not really be free will, we would all be doing the good thing because that is the only thing there would be to do. If you remove the choice, you no longer have free will. This is one of the most important aspects of God's plan.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL...no I didnt...this is what I said...

If God is...

a) omniscient - he knows of all evil

b) omnibenevolent - he desires the abscence of evil

c) omnipotent - he has the power to eliminate evil

then why is there evil?

Or better yet....do you believe that your God is not an Omnimax God? You do understand the actual meaning of the words above?

What say you about this......(Not my words and not necessarily all of my thoughts)...but certainly thought provoking.

1. All major religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, .....


My question was...why is there evil?

Okay, fine, my response is "I don't know", but I'll tell you this, any attempt to determine anything about the existance of God from that line of reasoning is doomed to failure.

But come on, let's call a spade a spade. You honestly want me to beleive that you just wanted to know why there was evil, or was what you really meant "How can you justify the existance of god based on this arguement and the existance of evil".

Because if that wasn't your intent, then it would seem to me you're going in circles. You know evil exists, and you believe God does not exist, yet you want to know why it is that evil exists based on the premis that God doe exist.

Which way is it? Are you questioning the existance of God, or are yo uaccepting this as true and using it as a premise to question reason for the existance of evil?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Rathji

They have become norms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28sociology%29 )of society, which I guess could be called common sense. Either way it was almost undoubtedly affected by a thousand years of Christian dominance in the western culture and it's development. Whatever affected what our society accepts as normal, it still falls closely in line with Christian values.

I have no doubt we have been affected by a thousand years of Christian dominance. I also don't doubt that many of these norms pre-date Christianity and the bible by many thousands of years, but we credit the bible and Christianity with all this great stuff -- our morality and some pretty important but straightforward things like "don't kill" and "don't steal". I don't buy it.

People were doing these things while they were worshipping sun gods and jaguars, doing rain dances and sacrificing virgins.