'Re-vamp' to logical POE refuted

In response to the supposed 're-vamp' of the logical POE found here.

Atheist special pleading.

I always hear the following argument.

A.)The atheist states that he does not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence for God, which is fine, as God is absent from scientific literature.

B.)However, there is no scientific evidence for a slew of other things the atheist believes as well, there is certainly no scientific evidence that the atheist himself exists, or his mother exists, or that his parents love him/spouse love him, or his friends like him, yet the atheist believes that.

The atheist might state that A is more reasonable, but that is beside the point as it no longer becomes about scientific evidence now, but 'what is reasonable' and 'what is reasonable' is entirely subjective. To the atheist it might be 'more reasonable' to believe B rather than A, but to a theist it is equally reasonable to believe in A and B.

It is quite fine to say that you have not experienced evidence for God, it is also fine to say that there is no scientific evidence for God, but that doesn't even matter, as you most likely have not seen evidence for quantum mechanics nor have you seen evidence for evolution. The atheist engages in special pleading and hilarious irony when they declare personal experience is not good enough when it comes to God because they believe in something else that somebody elses personal experience. It simply boils down to what the completely subjective notion of who are what is 'more reasonable' to follow.

One would think that someone who had studied Christianity and has the equivalent of a P.H.D would have better arguments than this! Round 3.

In the summary of chapters 14-15 in his book, Loftus said the following about Genesis and science:

Astronomy has established that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old and arose out of a cosmic singularity. No account of the development of our universe can be harmonized with the creation accounts in Genesis, as the latter are pure folklore. Archaeology has found no evidence of 400 years of Israelite slavery in Egypt, Israelites who wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, or an Israelite conquest of Canaan. Geological evidence in the sedimentary rock layers of a roughly 4.5 billion year old planet confirms the slow evolutionary development of life, just as astronomical evidence confirms the slow evolutionary development of galaxies, stars, and planets. Geology also falsifies that at any point in human history there was a universal flood which covered the Earth.

In the actual book, Loftus went into greater detail discussing various theories that Christians use in attempts to harmonize Genesis with science, and in typical Loftus fashion, his attacks are leveled against the uneducated, ignorant, logically, factually and historically inept Christian. Loftus spends 24 pages attack the Gap theory, concordist interpretation, local creation, YEC and various other theories created in the 1970's, but I am not here to defend either of those theories, I am simply here to prove to Loftus that Genesis can in fact be harmonized with science.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The word here for create is the word BARA which means to create something new.

1) to create, shape, form

a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

1) of heaven and earth

2) of individual man

3) of new conditions and circumstances

4) of transformations

b) (Niphal) to be created

1) of heaven and earth

2) of birth

3) of something new

4) of miracles

c) (Piel)

1) to cut down

2) to cut out

2) to be fat

a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Interpretation: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth brand new

Now we go down to the 'fourth day' and we see a different word, it is the word MADE.

Genesis 1:14-17

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Look at the word made, it is the word ASAH, and asah means to fashion from pre existing material or an action completed in the past.

1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make

a) (Qal)

1) to do, work, make, produce

a) to do

b) to work

c) to deal (with)

d) to act, act with effect, effect

2) to make

a) to make

b) to produce

c) to prepare

d) to make (an offering)

e) to attend to, put in order

f) to observe, celebrate

g) to acquire (property)

h) to appoint, ordain, institute

i) to bring about

j) to use

k) to spend, pass

b) (Niphal)

1) to be done

2) to be made

3) to be produced

4) to be offered

5) to be observed

6) to be used

c) (Pual) to be made

2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

Interpretation: 16 God had made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also had made the stars.

17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.



"God HAD made 2 great lights, he also HAD made the stars in verse 1 already, the heavens were already created, it said it in verse 1, so God took what he HAD made already and put them there, as you can see it is not the word BARA that is in Genesis 1:16 which means to create as new, it is the word ASAH.

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexic...54&version=kjv

2. (Niphal) to be created
1. of heaven and earth
2. of birth
3. of something new
4. of miracles



http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexic...13&version=kjv


17. (Niphal)
1. to be done
2. to be made
3. to be produced
4. to be offered
5. to be observed
6. to be used
18. (Pual) to be made

These are legitimate uses for the words, it states that the stars, sun, the whole heavens(which indicates the universe) is older than the earth. Regarding six literal days? Psa 90:4 states:

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

The word day in Genesis is also the word Yowm. A valid interpretation means a general time period.

1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)

b) day (24 hour period)

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

2) as a division of time

a) a working day, a day's journey

c) days, lifetime (pl.)

d) time, period (general)

e) year

f) temporal references

1) today

2) yesterday

3) tomorrow

An old earth and old universe can be interpreted in Genesis 1 just as 'literally' as a young earth can. The above explanation is compatible with the age of the earth, the creation of the universe, stars, sun, earth etc, and since an exact age of things is not presented in the Bible, it can be changed when the available evidence comes into play, and while this post discusses only the astrology aspects of the Genesis, I cannot, in the same confidence I do astrology, present an interpretation for the origins of life since I am presently ignorant, uninterested, and apathetic in evolutionary biology(BORING!). However, I will note that some people ascribe to 'theistic evolution,' so my guess(a guess from an ignorant, uninterested apathetic person that finds the whole concept a huge bore) is it is compatible with Genesis.

Verbal Knockout.

Even the untrainted can score knockouts, it is just a matter of opportunity.

At the height of his fame, Muhammad Ali was settling into his plane seat when an air hostess came and gently reminded him to put on his seatbelt.

"Superman don't need no seatbelt", Ali snorted.

"Superman don't need no airplane", the hostess retorted, a winner by knockout.

This man needs a separate casket for his heart and chin.

The boxing world will definitely miss one of its most exciting, heart felt, passionate, gutsy fighters, Arturo Gatti.

SAO PAULO (AP)—Brazilian authorities detained the wife of former boxing champion Arturo Gatti and formally accused her Sunday of killing him at a posh seaside tourist resort in Brazil.

Police said 23-year-old Amanda Rodrigues was taken into custody after contradictions in her interrogation and presented a formal accusation against her. Prosecutors will later decide whether she will be charged.

Rodrigues, who denies any involvement in her husband’s death, was the first to find the slain boxer’s body early Saturday inside the vacation apartment they were renting at the Porto de Galinhas resort in northeastern Brazil, police said.

The former junior welterweight champion was apparently strangled with the strap of a purse, which was found at the scene with blood stains, said Milena Saraiva, a spokeswoman for the Pernambuco state civil police. She told The Associated Press that the Canadian also sustained a head injury.

Police said Rodrigues, a Brazilian, could not explain how she spent nearly 10 hours inside the residence without noticing that Gatti was already dead.

It is also extremely ironic that the fighter who gave us classic tough guy fights like Gatti Ward 1 and 2 in which he gave and received punch after punch, blow after punishing blow and still came back for me, met his end by being strangled with a purse.

Athiest integrity.

So Froggie said the following:

TD,
You can take your stupid rules and stick them up your holy spirit's ass while jacking off on a picture of your effiminate Jesus.
You are a fucking retard.

Which is in direct violation of rule #8. Froggie then responded with the following:

TD,
This is your house and I respect that.
I don't want to ruin the open dicussions so I give you my word that I will not comment here.

If I decide to make any comments on your posts, I will do so at SMRT.

At least turn off the moderation and give it a try. I will not comment.

I am also posting this comment at SMRT.

Now, in this thread He has gone against his word by saying.

Hi TD!

Which not only shows that Froggies concept of respect and his word is about as low as his intelligence is. Doubtless some people will maintain it is trivial, as he just said hi, and while the comment itself might be trivial, him going back on his word is not. So, until I find a more effective way to prevent ignorant people like froggie from posting when they clearly violated the rules, comment moderation will be turned on. It is really amusing how the tactics of an frustrated, ignorant, intellectually inferior atheists mirror that of a frustrated, ignorant, inferior fighter. When they can't beat you legitimately, they resort to dishonest, shady, back handed tactics.

Genealogies in the bible.

ExPatMatt brings up some good questions about genealogies in the bible. The purpose of the genealogies was not chronologically. The quickest, fastest summary I have found that proves this point can be found here.

1. Abridgement and omission of unimportant names is the pattern in the genealogies of the Bible. There are numerous examples of this observation. One prime example is the omissions in the genealogies of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 1:8 Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), Joash (2 Kings 7:1), and Amaziah (2 Kings 23:34; 1 Chronicles 3:16) are dropped between Joram and Ozias (or Uzziah). In Matthew 1:1 the entire genealogy of Jesus is summed up in two steps, "Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham."

The genealogies seem to be more concerned with only the names of important people and NOT relaying a strict chronological timeline.

The genealogy in Exodus 6:16-25 makes Moses the great-grandson of Levi though 430 years intervened (Exodus 12:40). It is, therefore, evident that many names have been omitted from Moses' genealogy.

If one were to take the genealogies 'literal' then Moses would be a 430 year old great grandson.

3. "Father," "Son," and "begot" were used in a broad sense. Several Biblical passages contain ancestral titles used in a broad sense. We know from earlier discussion that several names have been omitted in Matthew 1:8 after Joram. Therefore, Joram was actually the great-great grandfather of Uzziah. It is obvious that the "father" used in verse 8 between Joram and Uzziah means "ancestor" instead of its conventional meaning. In 1 Chronicles 1:36 the Hebrew text includes seven names after "the sons of Eliphaz," making it appear that all the seven named are sons. Actually one of the names, Timna, was that of a concubine, not a son. Only the New International Version translates clearly that Timna was Eliphaz's concubine, as recorded also in Genesis 36:11-12, and the other six are sons.

Matthew 1:1 reads, "Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham." "Son" here obviously means descendant. Therefore, the biblical writers and translators seem to use the words "father" and "son" freely to mean "ancestor" or "descendant", and sometimes the persons are not closely related.

The regular formula in the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 10 is "A lived _ years and begat B, and A lived after he begat B _ years and begat sons and daughters. And B lived _ years and begat C...." (KJV). The Hebrew word "begat" is sometimes used for succeeding generations. Zilpah is said to have "born to" Jacob her great-grandchildren (Genesis 46:18 NIV) and Bilhah her grandchildren (Genesis 46:25). Canaan is recorded to have begotten whole nations (Genesis 10: 15-18).

Furthermore, if the dates are true, Adam was contemporary with every generation until the Flood, except Noah. Methuselah died in the year of the Flood. Shem survived Abraham for 35 years; Salah 3 years; and Eber, 64 years. For 58 years Noah was the contemporary of Abraham, and Shem actually survived Abraham for 35 years. Such conclusions are contrary to the spirit of the record that presupposed a much longer gap between Noah and Abraham.

Here we have the source of what usually causes confusion in reading the bible, the language difference. In Gen 5 and 11 they both use the word begat to link one generation to the next. In Ex 6:20 and Num 26:59, this same word links Amram and his wife Jochebed to Moses even though there are many generations in between them. These verses quite clearly show that the word beget can be validly used in the way that is shown above, the word for beget is the hebrew word "yalad." The translations for yalad are as follows:

1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail

a) (Qal)

1) to bear, bring forth

a) of child birth

b) of distress (simile)

c) of wicked (behaviour)

2) to beget

b) (Niphal) to be born

c) (Piel)

1) to cause or help to bring forth

2) to assist or tend as a midwife

3) midwife (participle)

d) (Pual) to be born

e) (Hiphil)

1) to beget (a child)

2) to bear (fig. - of wicked bringing forth iniquity)

f) (Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)

g) (Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree)

It is also very important to note that flutes assertion found here:

So you don't need to interpret the earth's age YEC-style. You just need to count the years in the chronologies backwards, then BINGO!

is an ignorant one, since the genealogies only go up to Adam, but according to the old earth view, the earth was created billions of years before Adam was created, thus using the genealogies to interpret the earths age is a YEC interpretation.

I would also like to note that I am not in anyway shape or form trying to assert that one view is more correct than the other view, but that both views are adequately supported by biblical evidence and instead of arguing which one is right and which one is wrong, Christians need to understand that doing so is pointless. In retrospect I see that this post is extremely relevant here.

1 Timothy 1:3-7

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm

Pauls words seem extremely relevant in this situation, as old earth/young earth interpretations of these genealogies are causing disputers rather than Godly edification.

Update: Flute makes an irrelevant point.

You were the one who brought up YEC. I was saying you don't need that to calculate the date of the flood.
I want to make this clear; I was not talking about the age of the Earth. I was talking about the date of the mythical flood.

I was certainly incorrect saying that flute was talking about the age of the earth, however he still has no point since the genealogies cannot be used for chronological purposes so it can't even be used to date the flood!

Christianity and insults and mocking.

It is quite ironic how Christians maintain that insulting people and mocking them is not Christian at all, when Jesus our Lord and Savior engaged in both insults and mocking people.

Matthew 19:4

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,

Jesus asks the Pharisees a seemingly innocent question "Have you not read?," but a deeper look into the historical context shows this to be quite a sarcastic mocking question. For someone to become a Pharisee they had to memorize the first 5 books of the bible! so it was obvious that they had read it, they had studied it, memorized it, they had read it tons of times. Jesus was sarcastically mocking the Pharisees here.

Matthew 23:33

33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

Jesus is calling them Serpents and brood of vipers!

There is a difference of course, between the type of mocking and insults Christ is using and the type of mocking and insults that are commonly used today, an article I found on Tektonics sums up Christianity insults and mocking quite nicely.

Many ancient societies (and we shall see below, certain modern social groups) engage in a process known as challenge-riposte. The scene of such processes is public venues in which two persons or groups have competing honor claims: "...the game of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played out in public." [42] The purpose is for each party to try to undermine the honor, or social status, of the other in an exchange that "answers in equal measures or ups the ante (and thereby challenges in return)."

In the Gospels, Jesus "evidences considerable skill at riposte and thereby reveals himself to be an honorable and authoritative prophet." Many of these challenges are clear, but some are so hidden to us that they need exposition.

There is a difference between the type of satire and mocking used in challenge-riposte and simply insulting people for the sake of pride or to get back at someone who insulted you first. I particularly like the following parts (which I broke up into separate sections) of the article as it is quite analogous to fighting.

There are certain people who has no desire whatever to discuss the truth-claims of the Christian faith. His sole goal, so it seems to me, is quite simply to ridicule Christianity and Christians .... There is no kindness in his approach, and he seems to show none of the 'caution' standard in careful inquiry and exposition.

Everyone now and then (more often than not it seems) in a gym you will encounter someone that is 'outwardly' seeking to join the gym and learn to fight, but inwardly they are just seeking to prove to themselves or their crew (they usually try to bring their friends along) that they're tougher and stronger and better than these 'wussy trained fighters.' They have no intent to learn, they have no intent of bettering themselves as a person or a fighter, their only intent is to appease their own ego and pride.

What to do with such a one? If you play the nice guy, you're likely to get swarmed, not by any irrefutable arguments, but rather, by a veritable skyscraper of excess and inflammatory verbiage. And unfortunately, there are those, on both sides of the argument, who are persuaded by such things. We are humans, not computers, and a show of confidence or arrogance does, to some, seem to equate with being the victor.

Continuing from the example above, that person(henceforth named "the bum") goes through the same process that everyone else goes through, they have to spar with one of the top 3 fighters in the gym. Now what is the fighter to do against the bum? quite analogous to the above article, if the fighter plays nice with the bum, he will get swarmed, not by any actually effective fighting technique but simply because the fighter is playing nice, coddling the bum, not trying to hurt the bum, but this runs the risk of undermining the gym, the fighters own skill, and even worse promotes the bums own fighting style, ego and pride as superior to the gym and one of the 3 top fighters.

So what does the Christian apologist, in dealing with such as these, do? He fights a spark with a blow torch. Just as, when climbing a mountain, even though the goal is to reach the top as quickly as possible, and therefore, so it would seem, only moving upward in a straight line is the most conducive activity for achieving this end, we often find that it is actually more expedient to, at certain moments, to go to the left or right (for instance, when there is a boulder or stream immediately in front of us); so too, the Christian apologist, out of the love for Love, is at certain times warranted in using sarcasm and satire.

What should the fighter do in dealing with these bums? he must beat them, soundly, not to appease and lift his own ego and pride, but to simply show that his fighting style, his way, his tao, is superior while bums fighting style is the inferior one, his fighting style is closet to the truth, the bums fighting style is not. Just as the article states the Christian uses sarcasm and satire out of love for Love, rather than loving his own ego and pride, the fighter delivers each punishing blow to the face, not to selfishly justify his selfish desires, but out of love for his gym, his coach, and the tried and true effectiveness of the fighting style.

That is why when someone genuinely wants to learn about Christianity(or anything for that matter) I do not insult or sarcastically mock them, I do not treat them like the people that "simply seek to ridicule Christianity and Christians," I try(my best) to do what I can to help them learn. Similarly when it comes to the gym, when someone genuinely wants to learn how to fight, the top 3 boxers do hit them with 100% strength, they do not go all out on them, they do not treat them like a bum, but rather gently(yes, in fighting there is a gentleness) test their current level of fighting while helping them learn.

It will be stupid.

I am calling it, the GI Joe movie will be stupid, the CGI will be corny, the plot and story will follow suit. I am predicting it will be along the lines of Wolverine or Resident evil 2. Marlyn Waynes? Joseph Gordon-Levitt as COBRA COMMANDER? give me a break.