/lit/ - Literature

But it does. We have this thread everyday?

https://aquinasonline.com/problem-of-evil/

>>19130453
It doesn’t. Your gods are two. One malevolent, one important.
It is a plot hole in a fabrication

It's literally answered in the first book.

God gave us all the choices possible as retracting any choices would go against free will.
God warned us that rejecting Him would cause death and suffering as He is literally the source of life
Humans rejected Gods natural laws
We suffer the consequences

If He were to stop suffering then it would go against free will and His promise - God literally cannot lie, so preventing death and suffering would go against His promise made to Adam and Eve on the consequences of rejecting Him.

But Atheists simply do not like that answer. Just like they don't like the fact that Jesus isn't the happy all loving hippy they thought He is and so cherry pick passages to support their bullshit.

>>19130966
Yes no maybe I dont know can you repeat the question¿

>>19130439
All those questions are answered in the Bible. Why waste time arguing things that are already established in scripture? Go read the Old Testament.

>>19130439
How does it not? If Christianity doesn't, what religion somehow does, in your eyes?

>>19131230
Well said and God bless you.

The answer to the theodicy is older than the question itself, why do unread atheists keep bringing it up?

>>19131230
Heh unread prole.

>>19130966
>important
Impotent*
Geez

Captcha: PYPWP

>>19131306
suck it up bitch

>>19130439
I'm an atheist but
>Is he able, but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent.
This is retarded. It is answered in the Bible but even if it wasn't, you can't judge an omnipotent being by the moral standards of mortals. An omnipotent being is beyond human understanding.

>>19131319
Then He can do anything, and it will be just. "Good" becomes meaningless if by "good" you mean compassionate, fair, anthropocentric, etcetera. God's subjectivity is our objectivity, apparently.

Christianity is a suicide cult. Watch Logan's Run.

>>19131475
well atleast thats not controdictory thought it is a weird reversal of pessimism
like the integral of nihilism

>>19130966
You quite literally don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

>>19131475
Good comes out of the Being of God. Good without God is a meaningless concept. The morally good in terms of actions, motive, and thought is a manifestation of God in the creation.

>>19130439
How many more times do fedoras plan on spamming this? We've been over it a million times.
Also we need a /rel/igion board.

>>19130453
Evil (woman) is definitely created anon

>>19130439
this isn't even a good argument dude, its based off a primitive concept of the divine

>>19130966
Even if you think that the problem of evil poses a real problem for theism; it is not THIS ancient formulation of it. Contemporary atheist academics, when they do employ the problem of evil, use much more sophisticated arguments than this. Do you know why? Because Epicurus has been answered for over a millennia at this point. Please either learn what you are talking about or stop talking.

>>19132536
What is this answer?

>>19131319
>>This is retarded. It is answered in the Bible but even if it wasn't, you can't judge an omnipotent being by the moral standards of mortals.
But then why do humans know so much about God, and by humans i mean jews>>19131230
>>19131289

>>19131298
>unread
There's your answer. Epicurus's way of putting it is easy to digest and sounds, to the layman, like a knockdown argument. Credit where it's due, Epicurus was no dummy. That said, it's still pretty annoying to see time and time again that the atheists of /lit/ don't care to move past the most sophomoric arguments

>>19132562
It's been linked many times in this thread. However, if you want a very short (and incomplete) version of a common answer here you go:
God's goodness isn't threatened by allowing evil so long as he has sufficient justification for permitting it (it is necessary to bring about a greater good). for example, God permits evil like murder and rape because they are necessary consequences of free will. God wants us to be good by a free choice of the will, but if we are free to do evil then some of us will. So God permits those evils in service of the greater good of free will, and is still considered maximally Good. Remember, this is just a summary of one response to one formulation of the problem of evil. The metaphysical problem of evil, for example, is an entirely different beast (best answered by Plotinus IMO). I'd suggest reading some of the links in this thread if you actually want to learn more

>>19132598
>Remember, this is just a summary of one response
It’s quite enough.
This is an evil wretched god. Quite inadequate for a heavenly father.

>>19132568
>But then why do humans know so much about God, and by humans i mean jews
You seem to have quoted me and I'm not a jew. You do understand a new covenant was established through Jesus Christ which invites both jews and greek/gentile, right?

>>19132621
>said the human using their limited human awareness to judge the Creator of all things

>>19131230
>God literally cannot lie
but he could've also just not said it since he fucking knows what's going to happen anyways
is your god a retard or what?

>>19132621
If you want to wallow in your angst then go ahead but please stop acting like you have any decent arguments for your position. you don't

>>19132633
Not a reasonable excuse.

>>19132651
No excuse, just pointing out that you are using a base level intellect to judge a supreme being that created the entire concept of an intellect to begin with. You think you know, but you have no idea.

>>19131230
>First book
>Fruit of knowledge of good and evil
>Adam and Eve do not have the knowledge before making the decision to eat
>All of humanity punished for eternity for a decision they could not possibly be held accountable for
The bible is a trainwreck right from the start

>>19132665
>>Adam and Eve do not have the knowledge before making the decision to eat
a common misconception many people seem to make. Adam was given authority to name all the animals in the garden. Adam already had intelligence and a creative mind. this occurred before Eve was even created. God makes it clear that all fruit is good to eat, so they clearly had the awareness to eat food.

>all of humanity punished for eternity
not anymore. a path has been established by Jesus Christ who wish to return to that higher state of being.

>>19132661
>a base level intellect to judge a FICTIONAL being
Ftfy

>>19132688
you are just blind to His existence, there's a huge difference. but that's okay. you are not forced or obligated in any way to believe in Him. that is a choice people have to make for themselves, and as it stands, you've made that choice.

>>19132694
Remember my lesson well.
Hope it will come in handy someday soon

>>19132688
I’m amazed that you think you’re winning this exchange. You should probably wear a helmet wherever you go. Maybe a special helper to tie your shoes for you and make you kraft dinner would be a good idea

>>19132706
no lesson learned at all. my faith comes from direct experience and revelation. i have gone through far more and far worse attempts at disrupting my faith than what you attempted today.

>>19132694
>>19132710
man, you guys sure get all dramatic about conceding

>>19132710
Run along now

>>19132665
how the fuck can you be this retarded
god is the absolute Good. Adam and Eve "knew" this, and would partake in the absolute good by following his word, the logos. The fruit of good and evil does not grant knowledge of morality to an amoral being, it is symbolism for man choosing to stray away from the logos, and deciding for themselves what is moral and what is not

>>19130966
you are rarted

>>19132678
Maximum cope. They did not have the knowledge of good and evil, yet god punishes them as if they did. It's a morally incoherent story.

>>19132739
Lol, the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is redundant because Adam and Eve already knew good, thus making the whole story incoherent in every aspect. Genius argument there friend

>>19132901
But they did, after the consumption of the fruit. Your inability to understand the sentiment and moral of the story does not make it incoherent, I think such a misunderstanding stems from your own intellect.

>>19131230
I still don't get how god can be omniscient yet claim humans have free will. Because if he is all knowing, isn't every man's destiny predetermined?

>>19130439
Yeah but funticarianishts answer is "God pulls too many cones."

god is making man in his image, as such man has to understand the mastery of will in the face of both pleasure and pain. suffering exists because we are still becoming, not being. what we perceive as a lifetime is an instant, not even the snap of a finger

>>19131230
mental gymnastics gold medalist, right here

>>19133232
try actually refuting what was said rather than making this claim.

>>19131230
So there has to be baby rape? That sucks. The baby barely makes any choices by the time it happens. Nice going Adam and Eve.

>>19130439
>satisfactory

>>19133132
God knows your choices, but does not create them. Of course He knew from all eternity, before creating you what you would do, but He did not preprogram you to do these things. He has a certain plan for you, but you can freely choose not to follow it. On the Day of Judgement you won't be able to say anything in your defense because God will show you all the ways you could have repented and how He was revealing Himself to you in various ways you could have accepted.

>>19133297
The baby will get rewarded for persevering through this suffering. It's like the martyrs and confessors of Christ. All baptized babies already have a spiritual life even if their intellect isn't developed, since faith and God's grace is supra-rational, so they are already collecting heavenly rewards for the good Christlike deeds they can do. Same goes for the mentally ill.

>>19130439
Like a child whining why he can't get all the cookies

>>19133066
The punishment is for the decision to eat the fruit, which took place before eating the fruit, so by definition at a time when they did not know good and evil and as such cannot justly be held accountable for that action.

>>19130439
Who or what can stop you?

>>19132724
go away. nobody likes narcissists, stupid ones even less.

>>19133340
Not gonna lie that makes no sense at all. So he knew from the very beginning what path you would take, but on judgement day he'll say "well maybe if you did this things would be different." But he KNEW you wouldn't do that. That's predetermination...

>>19130453
>https://aquinasonline.com/problem-of-evil/
>Upon reflection, the truth is:
Therefore, an all-good, all-powerful God is
not impossible given there is evil.
It's all cope

There's a whole subdiscipline of theology dedicated to this problem, called theodicy. It's the biggest cope in the history of humanity.

>>19133340
He created the initial conditions in a deterministic universe. God is able to prevent evil by creating a universe where it doesn't exist. He just chose not to.

>>19130439
God in the OT is not the same God as the one in the New Testament. Jesus never calls his God anything but Father.

>>19133671
He knows because He is outside of time. You are still making your choices, God just witnesses them. Nobody is making you choose what you choose, you can just be nudged either way (either by demons or by the law imprinted on your heart, or by the Holy Spirit if you are Christian), but it is still always you who are using your will.

On Judgement Day as an unbeliever, a person will be judged for not following the law imprinted on his heart and for rejecting Christ if he has heard about Him. You couldn't cope out of this in any way, since it was you who decided to do these things.

>>19133926
This. People need to accept God's authority over them, and not try to make excuses for His rightful actions.

>>19133947
>deterministic universe
Completely false presupposition.

>>19133969
Cringe. Christ is precisely the God of the Old Testament who spoke to Abraham and Moses. He says that much Himself and calls Himself the master of the Sabbath.

>>19133297
>Has to be
There didn't have to be. Once again, God wanted to create and rule over creation with Him and to have a relationship with Him with no death or suffering, but to have a relationship of Love you need to want it willfully and so He gave us free will and we rejected Him and feel from His Grace.

God is absolute. If He were to intervene then it would go against free will.

>>19133969

>I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
>Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM''
>Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
>Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
>...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Do i need to go on?

>>19134039
Also this. It also refutes the modernists who deny that Moses wrote the Torah. And the transfiguration.

>Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

>>19131279
anon your keyboard is broken

>>19133509
But they did know evil. God warned them against doing one thing, just one simple thing; man was tempted and he fell from grace.

>>19134615
Your god was less convincing than some random snake.

>>19134809
Any self-contained system, even if paradisal, will eventually have to contend with chaos which emerges within. Over a long enough period of time, an element of the system will succumb to this entropic calculation. Thus, the paradisal system is reformed from a reversal of that process, but with a successive purgation of the chaotic elements - thus, the eating of that which makes one self-aware begins the descent into chaos, but only those who have overcome that separative complex may walk back up the mountain of the garden, covered by the blood of the Lamb, exemplar. Only by embracing the perfect death, and indeed being born into it, is one worthy to partake of the tree of life.

Death is thus the weapon which leads to life.

"I went forth to meet the Philistine; and he cursed me by his idols.
But I drew his own sword, and beheaded him, and removed reproach from the children of Israel."

>>19134809
Any self-contained system, even if paradisal, will eventually have to contend with chaos which emerges within. Over a long enough period of time, an element of the system will succumb to this entropic calculation. The paradisal system, then, is sought anew - and approached by a reversal of that process, by a successive purgation of the chaotic elements. The wheat is separated from the chaff, and by the self-removal of that which chooses disorder over logos, purity is approximated.

Thus, the eating of that which makes one self-aware begins the descent into chaos, but only those who have overcome that separative complex may walk back up the mountain of the garden, covered by the blood of the Lamb, exemplar. Only by embracing the perfect death, and indeed being born into it, is one worthy to partake of the tree of life.

Death is thus the weapon which leads to life.

"I went forth to meet the Philistine; and he cursed me by his idols.
But I drew his own sword, and beheaded him, and removed reproach from the children of Israel."

>>19130439
The real problem isn't why God allows evil in this universe already created, but how a perfectly good God could choose to create a universe less perfect than him, since he would be choosing to allow evil over no evil existing at all.

>>19134978
Let us throw a bola in friction-less, gravity lacking space. Eventually, chaos must arise from within this system, and so in order to keep the bola flying at a constant speed this chaos must be purged.

That's your argument. The bola is a perfect paradisal system. No chaos.

I don't understand something. If free will is within the nature of God and therefore must be within the nature of His creations, why does God not commit evil but His creations do? What is the reason why the infallible use of freedom is present in the former but necessarily lacking in the latter?

>>19135005
>chaos
>must
Demonic cringe.

>>19135005
What is entropy? And what is its final end? You are missing the forest for the trees, because this is a metaphysical truth.

>>19130439
Christianity has the MOST satisfying answer, really.

If we humans are shortsighted and simplistic, our definitions of good and evil are shortsighted and simplistic. God's view of everything goes beyond our comprehension-- that is precisely what makes Him God. We don't understand His plan entirely and we never could-- we get frustrated and angry because we don't understand it. But that doesn't make Him evil.

What this really does, is expose other religions as the mere worship of man. Their gods play by the rules of man and are completely understood by the rules and logic of man. That makes them mere projections of men, not gods.

>>19135014
>but necessarily lacking in the latter
It's not necessarily lacking, in fact it is something we will possess if we freely choose Christ now and become sanctified.

God's free will is not the same as our fallen free will.
Even Adam's free will in Eden was not the same as our fallen free will.
Initially, Adam could never consciously choose evil, he could only be seduced into a false perceived good. His falling away from God's grace by disobeying God and thinking the fruit was good for food (when God explicitly forbade it) is what made him corrupted and then able to commit evils knowingly.

In the resurrection, we will be like Christ, whose human will always freely chose God's will and cooperated with it at every time. This is the original plan for humans and how their will should operate.

>>19135032
Yes, uh.
Please explain how entropy is gained in a system of only conservative forces.
>A paradisical system would have nonconservative forces
Cus you've seen One?

>>19135014
Because God's nature is perfectly Good with no privation, whereas man, a temporal and created being, has a nature which is by necessity not perfect Goodness (not actuality per se) - and thus, we are able to act in a way which is not perfectly good.

>>19135056
>please explain how entropy is gained in a system of only conservative forces
Do things decay?

>>19135052
>In the resurrection, we will be like Christ, whose human will always freely chose God's will and cooperated with it at every time. This is the original plan for humans and how their will should operate.
why wasn't it possible to make the image of christ originally instead of adam and eve?

>>19134985
Certain goods, like mercy or justice, require creation. If God does not create he cannot exercise divine justice or divine mercy.

>>19135065
If they have a proper form, and forces which do not conserve it act on them.

>>19135078
I wouldn't say that it was not possible for God, but rather, that it was suboptimal. Here are a few reasons which have been revealed.
1. To allow the individual human to choose whether or not it will follow God.
2. To show the individual human how much God loves them, and desires them.
3. To cosmically retribute Satan, who existed before humanity.
4. It is the solution which enables the highest number of humans to reach eternal life, within the set of all possible solutions.

>>19135078
Adam was made in the image of Christ and had the likeness of God, but He fell too quickly and thus was not able to have His will perfected by God when the time came. God's plan included more humans and even the incarnation all without the fall, so Adam was just too quick to remove himself from grace.

>>19135087
>Certain goods, like mercy or justice, require creation
Literal paganism lol
You're saying that creation is an eternal action, which is what the pagan doctrine of 'actus purus' actually leads to.

>>19135065
>Do things decay?
Only after the fall, yes. When they do not experience the life-giving grace of God.

>>19135102
Exactly. Within the macrocosm of life, we are dealing with a created system full of beings with proper forms, operated upon by forces of nature. There is entropy in our system, and indeed any system of material created beings. Thus, >>19134978. Your analogy fails to account for the fact that we are made of the elements, operated upon by cosmic rays and time, and possess free-will to choose chaos.

>>19135139
>indeed any system of material created beings
Completely false. Entropy isn't inherent in material creation. Adam's body did not decay before the fall, much like Christ's body is completely impervious to decay and material limitations after His resurrection.
>possess free-will to choose chaos
Only after the fall has already occurred. The ability to choose 'chaos' was not an initial parameter of creation (Adam could only choose good.). Suggesting otherwise literally is polytheism and introduces eternal chaos alongside God. Wanting to be God is good, but it's evil in the way Satan showed Adam by tricking him.

>>19135134
Millions of years before humanity existed, plants withered and died, buried in the mire, and generation upon generation of animals were destroyed, whose screams are preserved in clay.

>>19135139
Really? I don't have a proper form. Do you have one? Never seen it.
I can see that some qualities I describe to objects do not sustain, aka they degrade, but that's just something I stick on them. It seems that in our material world we are progressing to a state of "chaos", but that's just our world. Maybe after the chaos order comes again?

>>19135159
>Completely false. Entropy isn't inherent in material creation
Maybe if you live in a fantasy land outside of our actual phenomenological experience.
>Only after the fall has already occurred. The ability to choose 'chaos' was not an initial parameter of creation (Adam could only choose good.)
Adam sinned, and what is sin but choosing other than the will of God? It is entailed by free-will that Adam had the capacity to do wrong.

>>19135121
>have His will perfected by God when the time came
what would that process actually have entailed, and why was it impossible for it to occur simultaneously with the creation of Adam? thank you for answering my questions

>>19135192
>I don't have a proper form.
You don't see the irony in using the word "I" in this sentence?
>Do you have one? Never seen it.
Of course you are not going to see an immaterial object of the mind in physical space. This is the type of cancerous reasoning of empiricists.

>It seems that in our material world we are progressing to a state of "chaos", but that's just our world. Maybe after the chaos order comes again?
This is exactly what I am trying to say here >>19134978. With all due respect, just try to understand what it is that I am actually saying.

>>19132665
God explicitly tells them not to eat them fruit. You're just trolling or "pretending" to be retarded.

>>19135174
>Millions of years
>before humanity existed, plants withered and died
>animals were destroyed
These are common falsehoods believed in modernity, but it has nothing to do with Christianity, which teaches that death entered the world as a result of sin.

>>19135196
>our actual phenomenological experience
Our actual phenomenological experience is that of a fallen creation with entropy. But we know from revelation (from a non-fallen Being) that it was not always so. Naturally you cannot deduce this just from observing the fallen world itself with fallen intellect.
>It is entailed by free-will that Adam had the capacity to do wrong.
Adam did not believe the action to be wrong. This is not the same as being able to choose evil while knowing such a category exists as apart from good. If you tried to seduce Adam into blaspheming God, he would never choose that, but only a natural good contrary to God's will.

>>19135208
The same as it is today, becoming holy, but without repentance. Growing in faith and knowledge of Christ. Participating in Christ's righteousness and love by growing in good deeds.
It was certainly possible, but God choose to create a being who would grow in his love and desire God freely no matter what. Thus having the possibility to fall, since he is not perfect from the beginning. Sanctity is a synergy and cooperation with God, not a one-way forced state of being.

>>19135223
>You don't see the irony in using the word "I" in this sentence?
No? The "I" changes, yet remains I. I have not seen a proper form In the center of it yet. And no, obviously, I'm not talking about seeing with my eyes.
Sorry, I went off point with the order after chaos. I am sticking to the point where you think all systems must have entropy. We can easily imagine ones without. Regarding our own life, you see that it goes to decay because you apply forms. Stop applying forms, and entropy is not decay.

>>19133993
God doesn't just "witness them" though, as is shown by his direct intervention multiple times in the bible. He just all of a sudden chooses not to do that anymore. And it doesn't matter if he it "outside of time" or transcendent excuse you give, he is still aware of every action you will ever do before you do it. You cannot "surprise" god. You cannot redeem yourself when fate has predetermined that you will burn for eternity, a fate that god knew the moment he created Adam. Some people were destined to inherit the kingdom of heaven, others were determined for brimstone. Only a vague, paradoxical god can have is cake and eat it too. Either humans have free will and can surprise god proving he is not omniscient, or humans were predestined for heaven or hell as god knew all along. Being "outside of time" doesn't explain anything because you yourself don't even understand what that means. When does he "witness" us? Before? During? After?

>>19133297
It is monstrous, and not what God would ever want for us, it's not part of the plan, but it's the price of free will and those rapes are chosen by the people that do them. We don't put God on trial each time a man rapes someone, it's time to grow up and stop blaming him for it too.

>>19135247
The Earth is millions of years old

>>19135247
>it has nothing to do with Christianity, which teaches that death entered the world as a result of sin.
Christianity is always open to new understandings of the Logos of the universe. Human death entered the world as a result of sin, but you deny very clear observable logoi if you deny that there existed things which lived and died before humanity was cretaed.

>But we know from revelation (from a non-fallen Being) that it was not always so
Where does divine revelation state that no plant died before Adam was created, and sinned? How do you cope with direct evidence to the contrary, which you can see yourself? I believe your fundamentalism is leading you to not accept creation as it is, and not as you want it to be. Now it is not necessary for salvation that you conform your ideas to what evidence suggests, but I think it is prudent to not ignore data which goes against your preconceived notions.
>Adam did not believe the action to be wrong.
He literally directly disobeyed God's command, which is literally what sin is. You seem to be missing the point that all sin is characterized by an act's departure from the aim towards Good, and thus that there is no conflict between Adam committing sin, and that sin still being, to some degree, a "good" act which imperfectly aims towards the Good (in this case, being "as God").

>>19135260
No need to be sorry.
>I am sticking to the point where you think all systems must have entropy
You are missing the forest for the trees, like I said. This is not intended to be a materialistic statement, but a fractal and symbolic pattern which manifests itself at all levels of material reality in some way. Incorporeal pattern does not fall into chaos and time, but matter does. Do not think I am using the modern categories of such concepts - I am using the ancient ones.

>>19135276
According to scientism, which is inherently a false philosophical view since it denies revelation.

>>19135267
>when fate has predetermined
your free actions have determined*
there is no "fate" in the paganist sense.
>Before? During? After?
all of the above.

>>19135301
You are implying a false dichotomy between science and faith. One can make observances of the material world, testing outcomes and recording results, while still having their main lens be that of divine revelation and the apostolic Church. Science and faith are not in conflict, but in harmony.

>>19135252
>It was certainly possible, but God choose to create a being who would grow in his love and desire God freely no matter what.
why would the creation of a perfected will at the outset be contrary to this? The will, if perfected, still maintains it's freedom?

>>19131283
Answer each within 32 words or you're full of shit

It's amazing how Christians can vomit up pages and pages of cope on this topic. They are so fickle and hubristic, they think they can decide what constitutes good and evil, what should exist and what should not exist, and can only accept their God if his behavior adheres to their taste. Whenever it doesn't, they either invent mountains of cope or become atheists, both outcomes quite embarrassing.
Islam has the correct answer to this question, which is that if you think God has done anything he shouldn't have, then you are a retard by definition. Everything you call good and evil emanates from God, everything is according to his will, this is self-evident, and therefore any thought to the contrary is blatantly retarded.

>>19135296
>which lived and died before humanity was cretaed
Impossible, since death was not created. Creation was good, and death is not good. It has no actualization before sin. Animals or plants cannot sin since their will is only natural, not gnomic. So they cannot die before sin either, since death is result of sin. If you want to cope by saying that plants do not actually die when withering, it still doesn't change anything, since evolution presupposes animals killing each other, which did not happen as creation was good.

>How do you cope with direct evidence to the contrary
I don't see evidence of this, but rather interpretations of fallen men. Your way of measuring age can be wrong, since it does not account for the fall and for matter being changed drastically. So you're already operating on an incomplete/false picture, which can lead you to false conclusions and make the entire system unreliable. If I do not accept the base anti-Christian presumptions of scientism, I'm not obliged to believe in its interpretations of the physical world.

>He literally directly disobeyed God's command, which is literally what sin is.
Yes, I agree, but he was tempted by a good action, not an 'evil' one. That's what I mean. He sinned because of imperfect knowledge and not placing full trust in God, not how we can sin, by choosing apparent evils, which would not be able to deceive Adam (you couldn't trick him into fornication or idolatry for example).

>>19135312
I'm implying incompatibility with the philosophy of scientism and revelation. Not science as a limited tool of experimentation and systematization of knowledge about the fallen material world.
>testing outcomes and recording results
Correct, but this will never give you perfect knowledge of the past. You can try to recreate things in our current world to try and predict what it would have looked like in the past, but you will never know without direct knowledge/revelation.
The most you can do is say "this test appears to show that the world is millions of years old within this system/framework".

>>19135309
>be me, god, omnipotent/omniscient, 24
>"you know what today I'm gonna make the universe"
>makes stars, planets, etc
>ooh what if I make sentient beings in my own image
>makes Adam and Eve
>okay guys you can chill here in Eden for all eternity being immortal and all that as long as you DON'T eat from this tree.
>Eve has a woman moment
>justasplanned.jpeg
>Guys wtf is wrong with you I said not to
>"b-but you made us this way"
>no it's your fault

>>19135374
>b-but you made us this way
God did not make Eve sin. She had full power to resist the temptation.

>>19135130
Actus purus has been the dominant Christian concept of God for most of history

>>19135354
>it still doesn't change anything, since evolution presupposes animals killing each other, which did not happen as creation was good.
So explain how predatory carnivorous animals, which fossil records indicate lived and stopped living million of years before the earliest human, survived? Do you think the fossils were planted on earth by Satan, or something?
>Your way of measuring age can be wrong, since it does not account for the fall and for matter being changed drastically.
You do not have any evidence that matter changed drastically, and indeed revelation can be interpreted (and has been since ancient times) as saying that /human death/ came as a result of the fall, which completely eliminates all apparent contradictions which arise when holding your position.
>not how we can sin, by choosing apparent evils
Apparent evils are still "good" such that they are simply events on a continuum from hitting the mark perfectly (perfectly aiming towards the Good), or missing it (although never entirely, as they are always aimed towards what appears to the individual to be a good end).
>>19135370
>The most you can do is say "this test appears to show that the world is millions of years old within this system/framework".
Yes, and a myriad of instantiations of several different tests, from several different techniques, by several different people, with several different main lenses (including by apostolic Christians), increase the Bayesian probabilistic calculation that a given set of explanations is likely. Because this is the case for beings having lived and died before humans were created, I either have to come up with a case that explains away these facts, or embrace them. Because I acknowledge that both evolution and pre-fall animal/plant death are incredibly empirically supported, it makes sense to let the logoi of the universe speak for itself. It appears that God created animal and plant life through the process of evolution, and that plants and animals were the food of these evolving creatures - and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, what choice do I have but to embrace God and His creation as it is, rather than try to make it how I think it should be?

Regardless, you and I both know this is not necessary for salvation, and is simply in-house baseball. God bless and keep you, friend.

>>19135396
Actus purus is a pagan heresy which got adopted in Western Scholastic Christianity. The pre-schism Church Fathers do not teach it. In fact, it's completely absurd in their view of God and His attributes. Actus purus would make creation eternal since creation is an unactualized potential in God before the world began to exist. Scholastcisim identifies the ineffable divine nature (which does not admit potentia) with God's actions (which can admit potentia) so they collapse everything into a paganistic modalistic monad.

>>19135395
>>19135374
I don't understand the need to cling to the Genesis story and pretend it's literally true, or even if it's a metaphor, it's a 100% perfect metaphor, every element of which can be used to inform theology. It's obviously just a traditional ancient story that isn't more apparently true than any other culture's dumb traditional origin story. It's easy to find plenty of logical holes in it if you're treating it like a historical account. Really you shouldn't read into it that much, it's just there for fun

>>19135395
He did not directly make Eve sin, no. But he made an Eve that can and would sin, and he knew that she would. Because he's omniscient, right?

>>19135252
>>19135341
in a similar sense, Christ maintained freedom of will while having a perfected will at creation, no?

>>19135439
It is the key story that defines human free will in a Christian god-run universe. I'm using it as an example to show how the idea that you can't have an omniscient god and humans with free will because an omniscient god would know exactly what they would do even when they "technically" are capable of straying from that path. But they won't because omniscience is predetermination.

>>19135422
>predatory carnivorous animals
Only started existing after the fall.
>fossil records indicate lived and stopped living million of years
Rather your interpretation of the fossil record shows this. The fossil record itself is a piece of data, not a philosophy which shows you when/how these animals started to exist in relation to humans. It's a raw piece of data in the fallen world which you can interpret in many ways.
>saying that /human death/ came as a result of the fall
Our holy tradition ties all of creation to Adam as high priest and king over the created order on Earth. It's an absolute majority view of the Church Fathers that death in any form did not exist before Adam's sin. So I cannot believe anything else in good conscience.
>Do you think the fossils were planted on earth by Satan, or something?
I'm not excluding the possibility that this is what happened. It would certainly serve his goals and be well within an angelic being's power.
>You do not have any evidence that matter changed drastically
I do, Christ's human body is material and changed its properties to the initial state of Adam's body.

>Apparent evils are still "good"
Idolatry is not good in any sense. It is a separation from good, it is closer infinitely to non-existence than to good.

>>19135501
Free will isn't incompatible with omniscience. Free will only means that you can't predict my future decisions perfectly given only information from the present and past. Something inside my brain allows me to choose from multiple courses of action at each moment rather than have each subsequent decision determined, well, deterministically, from past decisions and events. But that doesn't mean someone who can literally see the future can't predict my behavior with perfect accuracy. The way a human's past behavior looks to you in retrospect is the same way that your entire life, including the future, looks to God. In other words, he's not calculating your future behavior by looking at the current state of your head. He's literally just looking at your future behavior directly, the same way that you can "look at" a person's past behavior.

>>19135422
>several different tests, from several different techniques, by several different people, with several different main lenses
Idolatry also had many different techniques and forms, but its ultimate basic presumptions were wrong (that you can serve creatures), so naturally their conclusions would also be wrong.

> beings having lived and died before humans were created
You do not have this as knowledge. Only as a possibility in systems explicitly not including revelation as their presupposition.

>rather than try to make it how I think it should be
I think this is what the evolutionists do, they take apparent evidence and non-Christian philosophies and try to integrate it into their worldview, when everyone enligthened by the Holy Spirit in such a long history of the Church held to death being a result of sin and not inherently a property of creation. This is not just an empirical point of contention, but a theological one. You can't cope out of this by saying that Church Fathers can get empirical facts wrong. To say that they were mistaken on the very nature of death is to say the cannot be trusted in theology, which is not a Christian position.

>You and I both know this is not necessary for salvation,
I honestly don't think so. Maybe it is unnecessary if you never think about it, but explicitly teaching or believing that death existed before the fall jeopardizes your salvation, since you are putting revelation and Holy Tradition below secular science. It's the same as unknowingly holding a false heretical view or preaching it, while knowing that the Church Father held a contrary position.

>>19131230
>But Atheists simply do not like that answer.
I mean, why should we like this answer. God created a talking snake to convince a woman to convince a man to eat a fruit and 6000 years later babies can die of cancer because of that?

You need to be a on a level of delusion to accept this kind of retarded shit that most people just aren't, for good reason.

>>19135341
Because perfect will in a created person presupposes sanctification, which is a synergistic process and not deterministic. God created someone who could be tempted and still choose God out of love, not out of being railroaded into it as an only possibility. It was also a way to punish Satan, by making his evil deeds ultimately lead to Christ's birth from a woman, His crucifixion and Satan's destruction.

>>19135499
Yes, Christ has the perfect human will as God envisioned it at creation. He also could not fall away since His human nature was fully deified in virtue of being embodied by the Logos.

>>19135439
>I don't understand the need to cling to the Genesis story and pretend it's literally true
Because if Genesis is not true, then Christ is a liar who did not came to save the world from the real sin of Adam as a real descendant of Adam by flesh. Christianity immediately breaks down if you deny Genesis as real. This is why people from all types of worldviews attack it with such unrelenting fervor.

>>19135548
>You do not have this as knowledge.
We do have this knowledge, barring some retarded sophistry. If you want to engage in retarded sophistry, we absolutely can. I'll do it right now:

I created the universe last week, during tuesday. During this event I implanted all memories in the minds of every human to make it seem like things existed in the past, and then I forfeited my own powers and erased my past memories of it as well, except for having enough knowledge to type this post about it.
Fuck me, I just did it, didn't I? Without even coming up with angel hierarchies, bears eating children or talking snakes. Best part is I can use circular argumentation to prevent you from ever showing me I'm wrong.
>they take apparent evidence
This is what Christians do. They lie. Point blank, and expect no-one to point it out because they have cultural hegemony and power in some parts of the world, during some periods of history.
You can try to rewrite the meaning of the word evidence, but I'm not forced to accept your rewriting. There is strong scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution and the standard model of physics, and there is no comparable evidence supporting the views of Christianity. You can give these groups of evidence any name you want, but one of them is supported by measurements anyone can make, and the other one is supported by fearmongering and power posturing and threads of eternal punishment. I know which side I choose.
>I honestly don't think so. Maybe it is unnecessary if you never think about it, but explicitly teaching or believing that death existed before the fall jeopardizes your salvation, since you are putting revelation and Holy Tradition below secular science. It's the same as unknowingly holding a false heretical view or preaching it, while knowing that the Church Father held a contrary position.
There are other religions for with your lifestyle is deserving of eternal punishment, but you'll never bat an eye to that. You're essentially to those religions what an atheist is to you, but you won't perceive this as hypocrisy because ... reasons. Again, you can rewrite history, words and logic all you want, you just can't except people to accept your rewriting, even if you try to force them. Measurements that can be agreed upon by different parties have a power that no religious indoctrination will ever have.

>>19135580
>He also could not fall away since His human nature was fully deified in virtue of being embodied by the Logos.
why not make this the standard?

>>19135542
>Something inside my brain allows me to choose from multiple courses of action at each moment rather than have each subsequent decision determined, well, deterministically, from past decisions and events
This goes against literally everything we have ever learned from physics.

>>19135423
>Only started existing after the fall.
This is not actually based on any falsifiable claim, but rather on your fallible interpretation of the scriptures.
>The fossil record itself is a piece of data
No, it is an overwhelmingly large set of datums, which all independently point toward the existence of carnivorous animals far before the existence of humans.
>It's an absolute majority view of the Church Fathers that death in any form did not exist before Adam's sin.
If you wish to disregard the obvious logoi of God's creation, feel free to do so. It is not necessary for your salvation to conform to this evidence of biology. Regardless, it would be prudent to recognize that Church Fathers are not infallible, but that ecumenical councils are. Many fathers also believed the sun revolved around the earth, because it seemed self-evident - but because it was not a fact necessary for salvation that the opposite was true, it does not appear to be revealed to the Fathers by the Holy Spirit in the guiding of the Church. The same can be said for the misperception of the fathers regarding the existence of plant/animal death prior to the fall.
>I do, Christ's human body is material and changed its properties to the initial state of Adam's body.
That is the matter of Christ's body - not the matter of the fossils of the earth, which we were speaking of.
>Idolatry is not good in any sense.
It is a far less-than-perfect action which misses the mark (a "sin"), but is still ordered towards a perceived good - namely, worship and praise of God, albeit in a disordered manner.

>>19135548
>Idolatry also had many different techniques and forms,
This is a false equivalence.
>Only as a possibility in systems explicitly not including revelation as their presupposition.
Many scientists explicitly include revelation and magisterial tradition as their main lens, including evolutionary biologists.
> To say that they were mistaken on the very nature of death is to say the cannot be trusted in theology, which is not a Christian position.
This issue obviously straddles the line between empirical reality, and theology, just as the sun orbiting the earth. We can acknowledge that because the issue was not critical for salvation, it was a completely understandable mistake - a theological speculation based on a fallible interpretation of scripture.
>explicitly teaching or believing that death existed before the fall jeopardizes your salvation, since you are putting revelation and Holy Tradition below secular science.
Yeah, that's literally not true, and very uncharitable to suggest. I am not sure what your soteriology is, but mine is that of the ancient apostolic churches, which do not dictate that one's view on evolution is salvific. My main lens is the infallible teachings of the church, of which pre-fall plant death is not one, although it is interesting to speculate on. I'm glad you're concerned, but ultimately, this is only your personal and fallible interpretation.

Just remove the need for God to be good and the problem is solved

>>19135580
It's hilarious that your god needs some ridiculous rube goldberg series of events to serve as an half-assed fix to a problem he created.

To me Terry Davis's understanding of God is more compelling than what I've read from the various religions: God made us to entertain himself. He lets us do what we want but he can also intervene if he feels like it. He's taking it all in and enjoying himself and he always gets what he wants. In this system, the old Greek fag's questions in OP are totally irrelevent.

>>19135542
So god knows who will and won't go to heaven, claim "well you coulda done something about it," claim it isn't his own fault and blame humans for their predetermined behavior. Your god's logic sucks

>>19135636
Not necessarily:) randomness exists at the quantum level:)

>>19135673
Something randomly happening in your brain is completely different from you deciding it ;)))

>>19135599
Yeah, this is incredibly cringe. Please don't jump into my conversation with this fedora garbage. Making such rookie epistemological mistakes is very embarrassing - the most honest agnostics will admit that there is a large body of evidence for the views of Christianity, but that they do not find that evidence convincing (because they lack faith - in essence, closing their hearts). Many do come to the truth after realizing that they are willfully choosing to disbelieve in spite of the evidence, and finally accepting God.
>Best part is I can use circular argumentation to prevent you from ever showing me I'm wrong.
There are extremely good reasons to be skeptical of your testimony, but extremely good reasons to believe the testimony of, say, the apostles, is leagues more reliable.

>>19135636
Physics fails to explain the nature and essence of consciousness, so I'm not sure why you are pretending like you have a coherent physical model which can predict its inner machinations.

>>19135663
>god knows who will and won't go to heaven,
Yes
>"well you coulda done something about it"
Yes
>it isn't his own fault
Correct
>blame humans for their predetermined behavior.
It's not predetermined, you determine it at every moment of your own life. Just because he knows what you're going to choose doesn't mean that you didn't choose it. The same way that God knowing what you chose yesterday doesn't mean that you didn't choose it (which you would never argue against, because it's obvious).

>>19135685
I need to be convinced of this

>>19135734
If god knows it in advance it's predetermined, that's literally the textbook definition kekw

>>19135699
>Yeah, this is incredibly cringe. Please don't jump into my conversation with this fedora garbage. Making such rookie epistemological mistakes is very embarrassing
You made really basic mistakes about highschool level scientific knowledge, yet I'm still engaging you, so this whole "I'm gonna make this about reddit so I don't have to reply" is not really impressive to me.
If you have reproducible experiments that anybody can make that verify the claims of Christianity I'm not sure why you'd hide them. It would convert an untold number of people to your religion.
>because they lack faith
I'm not sure if you're being dense on purpose.
>There are extremely good reasons to be skeptical of your testimony, but extremely good reasons to believe the testimony of, say, the apostles, is leagues more reliable.
There are reasons to be skeptical of just about everything. There's good reasons to be skeptical of special relativity, as it goes completely against our intuition. Science doesn't operate on what is intuitive or what feels good to believe or not. You have a fundamental misunderstanding (which I doubt is honest, I think you're really just pretending in order to win some internet argument) of how scientific inquiry operates.
>>19135699
>Physics fails to explain the nature and essence of consciousness, so I'm not sure why you are pretending like you have a coherent physical model which can predict its inner machinations.
I'm unconvinced that any human abstract concepts such as "consciousness" need to have any bearing on what physics or the universe have to say. You and me are not special enough that the universe has to bend to our notions of what is intuitive or not. Physics could be failing to explain consciousness simply because you define consciousness in such an arbitrary and irrelevant human way that it's literally nonsensical to expect physics to explain it. I'm sure you're not gonna like any materialistic approach to the topic because you are already previously convinced consciousness is inherently immaterial because this is the only way you can visualize things, and it's important for you that everything in the universe is "visualizable"
.

>>19135637
>Church Fathers are not infallible
Consensus of Church Fathers on theology is in fact infallible. Ecumenical councils do not show us the fullness of truth even though they are infallible, and in a sense they rely on the Church Fathers being in agreement and showing us the truth and arguing for it.
Death is a theological matter. No saint ever taught that death was used by God as a tool of creation, and that is who I base my theological beliefs on, not "falsifiability" or science. It seems we have a different starting point where you place undue trust in inherently flawed systems of thought which cannot by their design give you full truth or knowledge. You're essentially saying that the consensus of saints enlightened by the Holy Spirit in understanding the nature of death is flawed, but modern godless/heretical scientists have actually uncovered the truth after all. It's an entirely un-Christian way of thinking and I do not see why I should ever adopt this view as a believer.
Also, please show me on what basis do you think that God only enlightens people on matters important to salvation, and not all truth about creation in general.

>obvious logoi of God's creation
Death is not a logos of creation. To suggest this in itself seems to be very blasphemous to me, you are making Christ into an author of death. Death/decay is a tropos of the created world which was actualized as a result of sin. Just like passions are only a result of the mode of being of your fallen will.

>>19135663
Let's say you have a son. You know your son very well, having observed his patterns of behaviour for a long while. If you place your son in a room with a mashmallow, let's say you can be certain that he will eat it (having foreknowledge), but you did not make the choice for him (which would be double predestination). The same is true for humans - we are alive ("in a room"), with an offer of God's grace on the table ("a marshmallow"). We have a freely willed response, using our own conscious reasoning, to either eat this marshmallow, or choose not to. But God did not make us do it - we chose to do it, of our own free will.

>>19135738
Say there was a tiny little demon with dice in your skull. I ask you to choose a number from 1 to 6, he rolls and gets 3, your mouth opens and the word "three" is uttered.
Why am I supposed to assume "you" made this decision? I fail to see how the randomness of quantum events can explain free will in any way whatsoever. It really just feels like people throwing out a word like a smoke bomb and expecting everyone to scatter.

>>19135599
>I created the universe last week, during tuesday. During this event I implanted all memories in the minds of every human to make it seem like things existed in the past, and then I forfeited my own powers and erased my past memories of it as well, except for having enough knowledge to type this post about it.

>>19135608
Because humans are created, the Logos is uncreated. You as a person are not divine by nature, but only by participating in God's grace.

>>19135699
>the most honest agnostics will admit that there is a large body of evidence for the views of Christianity, but that they do not find that evidence convincing (because they lack faith
lol

Which apostles testimonies are these? The pseudepigraphal ones written in a language Jesus didn't speak generations after his death

>>19135781
It's right there for you to refute, all you have to do is post an argument instead of your collection of basedjaks.

>>19135014
god is in a state of perfect enlightenment, which we strive for. the complete domination of the conscious mind over its faculties, which frees it from sin and evil

>>19135767
>Consensus of Church Fathers on theology is in fact infallible.
Where is this infallibly taught - or is it your own fallible opinion?
>Death is a theological matter
It is also a biological manner, and the church fathers can be wrong on biology - just as they can be wrong on cosmology, such as when there is a consensus on geocentrism. Unless you also believe that to be the case?
>You're essentially saying that the consensus of saints enlightened by the Holy Spirit in understanding the nature of death is flawed
I am saying that the conclusions reached by theologians on their speculation of a biological issue are not infallible.
>modern godless/heretical scientists have actually uncovered the truth after all
This is a false dichotomy - there are many apostolic Christian evolutionary biologists and scientists, but you are ignoring that because it does not fit with your case.
>Also, please show me on what basis do you think that God only enlightens people on matters important to salvation
Why then did so many church fathers fall into the error of geocentrism? The purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls, and not to be an infallible source of biological and cosmological knowledge.
>Death is not a logos of creation.
Animals and bacteria eating each other are clearly a pattern of the universe, which is by definition a logos of creation. Your argument on whether or not that existed prior to the fall is based on your own fallible opinion, which is fine - as long as you acknowledge that it contradicts the physical evidence (which you have to explain away, despite being uneducated on the matter, and not having observed it).
>To suggest this in itself seems to be very blasphemous to me, you are making Christ into an author of death
You thinking that animals eating each other is evil, rather than a beautiful facet of the circle of life, could be said to be blasphemous, and a result of your darkened intellect misinterpreting the created order.

>>19135806
>pseudepigraphal ones
All extant copies of Matthew are labelled as being written by Matthew. What evidence is there that they are pseudepigraphal?
>generations after his death
The Corinthian Creed, and the Gospel of Matthew, are "generations after [His] death"? You are confused, friend.

>>19135761
>You made really basic mistakes about highschool level scientific knowledge
I'm not the guy who denies evolution.
>I'm not sure if you're being dense on purpose.
That's not an argument.
>You have a fundamental misunderstanding (which I doubt is honest, I think you're really just pretending in order to win some internet argument) of how scientific inquiry operates.
Again, not an argument.
>I'm unconvinced that any human abstract concepts such as "consciousness" need to have any bearing on what physics or the universe have to say.
Yeah, no matter what your cope is, the most intelligent people on your side agree that physics simply cannot explain the immaterial nature of consciousness, which is why they invented concepts like "emergence". Attempting to use physical principles to prove a deterministic perspective on how consciousness operates is, then, a symptom of ignorance of the limitations of your system (with all due respect).

>>19135087
>Certain goods, like mercy or justice, require creation. If God does not create he cannot exercise divine justice or divine mercy.
God is perfect and entirely self-sufficient. By nature he does not require anything contingent, like dispensing justice to contingent creatures. What you are saying is that God chooses to act imperfectly and allow imperfection for no reason - for something he doesn't need.

The idea of a perfect God choosing to create a universe with any imperfection is simply incoherent.

>>19135854
Because He acts out of an eternal overflowing of love and goodness, which is why He created - not because He needs it, but because He desires that beings have the chance to exist and understand His love for them.

>>19134615
Okay, so the whole story is redundant and the fruit is pointless, now the story is even more stupid, congratulations

>>19135087
>God had to create evil that he could save you from
Sounds like a pretty evil god.

>>19135834
>All extant copies of Matthew are labelled as being written by Matthew. What evidence is there that they are pseudepigraphal?
Because our earliest copies of Matthew are all labelled as such in different places: some at the beginning, some at the end, some in the margins. If the original manuscript of Matthew had that title then each subsequent manuscript would have copied the title in the same place: they didn't. This suggests that all of the gospels circulated pseudonymously and were only attributed to certain apostles by later Christians to boost their authority.

>The Corinthian Creed, and the Gospel of Matthew, are "generations after [His] death"? You are confused, friend.
Accepting that the Corinthian Creed isn't an interpolation, 1 Corinthians is written by Paul sometime in the 50s, so about 20 years after the death of Jesus, yes. Matthew is dependent on Mark, which is post-70AD, so likely 50 years or more after the death of Jesus. If there are any recollections of Jesus in the gospels they are in a language he didn't speak generations after the events of his life.

>>19135242
And then an angel told them to eat it, and having no knowledge of good or evil, they did what the angel said. They were less than children, they had no knowledge of good and evil, it's literally what the whole story is about, therefore god cannot justly hold them accountable, so again, the story breaks down

>>19135883
>Matthew is dependent on Mark

>Christcucks ITT

>>19135756
Sorry you can't wrap your mind around this, I'm not sure what else to say.

>>19135774
In that hypothetical scenario, are tiny demons the usual method by which humans come up with numbers between 1 and 6? In that case, then, I guess I did decide it, because that's what deciding means in that hypothetical world. If not, then I didn't decide it, I only appeared to decide. In that case I fail to see how the scenario applies to real life, in which I decide numbers between 1 and 6 the same way as everyone else does.
But if random events happening in my head and inducing me to choose a number doesn't count as a decision, then what does? What would have to be the case for you to agree that free will exists?

>>19135883
>If the original manuscript of Matthew had that title then each subsequent manuscript would have copied the title in the same place: they didn't.
If the original manuscript of Matthew had that title, then we would expect that all subsequent manuscripts would be entitled "the Gospel of Matthew", which they were. This suggests that the original manuscript was correctly attributed to Matthew, who was its original author.
>1 Corinthians is written by Paul sometime in the 50s, so about 20 years after the death of Jesus, yes.
Most biblical scholars, including liberal and non-Christian ones, agree that the Corinthian Creed is relating an oral traditional creed composed within 5 years after the death of Christ. Surely you knew this, though?
>Matthew is dependent on Mark, which is post-70AD
Besides the fact that Markan priority is not a consensus, let's grant it for the sake of argument - there is still no definitive reason to believe that Matthew had to have been post-70AD, unless one implicitly rejects the existence of prophecy. It is entirely possible that the original manuscript was composed far earlier than 70AD.

>If there are any recollections of Jesus in the gospels they are in a language he didn't speak generations after the events of his life.
The fact is that the Gospels contain explicit Aramaic phrases and transliterations, as well as preserving statements which preserve salience and word-play when translated back into Aramaic. There is also no reason to believe that the early Christian community did not adopt Koine Greek as a sort of lingua-franca between the communities of early believers - indeed, this seems to be the case, especially considering its prominence in the Roman territories - and as such, the original Gospels could have been dictated by Aramaic speakers (such as the apostles) to Greek scribes (which is exactly what Paul explicitly states is happening many times in his epistles, for example). Not to mention the fact that bilingual people existed in the early community, and therefore it is plausible that the apostles themselves came to speak the language of the communities they evangelized.

>>19135843
>he most intelligent people on your side agree that physics simply cannot explain the immaterial nature of consciousness
Not an argument. I could give less of a shit what "the most intelligent" people have to say, and I'm 100% sure, knowing the typical christian sophistry that if I ask you to produce these quotes by those most intelligent ones the most you're gonna have is that image with the physicists and the retarded misattributed claims.
>Attempting to use physical principles to prove a deterministic perspective on how consciousness operates is, then, a symptom of ignorance of the limitations of your system (with all due respect).
By your very metrics, not an argument. All of the phenomena we understand scientifically are described with physicalism as a basis. To make me take a single step outside of physicalism you must have some insanely good argument you're hiding somewhere, but refusing to show. "I swear to god there's some smart guy out there that disagrees with you" unfortunately is not such an argument. In fact it's no argument at all, at least when it comes to honest intellectual affairs.

To use the same line of thought, I think most intelligent people on your side of the debate accept the existence of fundamental particles.
They also accept that fundamental particles can combine into molecules.
They also accept that molecules can combine into simple single cellular life forms.
Up until here no talk of consciousness or soul is typically necessary according to "most intelligent people on your side".
But all of the sudden you expect me to accept that after an animal gets big enough, after a brain gets big enough, I have to throw out the entirety of physics and accept not only that something exists outside of it, but that your particular brand of religion is the one that got this right.
You also expect me to be intimidated by the fallacies you're throwing at me, enough to accept this, but I won't.

>>19135892
Yes? It's been proven with the phenomenon of editorial fatigue. We know Matthew was copying Mark because where Matthew makes improvements he sometimes forgets he's doing so and slips back into Mark's language, creating inconsistencies in the text.

Everyone accepts Markan priority, including most Christian bible scholars. It's only fundie Protestants in their faith schools who argue for Matthean priority nowadays.

>>19135922
>What would have to be the case for you to agree that free will exists?
That's the problem, I can't see how free will can even be defined, much less exist. In fact I think that's where the entire discussion falls apart, if you ever press anyone enough to define what "decision" really means. We are simply operating here with useless abstract human concepts and trying to bend nature to fit into this narrative.
If the tiny demon rolling dice counts as "you" personally deciding it, I find the concept of free will even more useless. Imagine getting punished because of random dice throw in your head making you say things. By the way I'm not saying real life dice are competely random, because they are entirely deterministic macroscopic systems, but the whole idea of "quantum microtubules" and quantum randomness guiding decisions in the brain seems to be very congruent to that thought experiment.

Free will is a nice concept for our intuition, much like describing time like a river flowing or something, but I dont think it exists much like I don't think time is an actual body of water anywhere, you know?

>>19135834
>Where is this infallibly taught
Council in Trullo. We cannot interpret Holy Scripture in a way contradictory to the Church Fathers.
>And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting.
>For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.

As for the rest of your post, it's just you saying that death is purely a biological matter detached from spirituality. It's an absurd proposition since death has to do with our salvation and with Christ's incarnation as necessary to defeat death. It's a spiritual and salvific matter, not an empirical/biological one like geocentrism (which is not patristic consensus by the way, unlike no death before the fall). Also, Arianism also had support from a lot of apostolic Christians, this does not make it correct.

>>19135947
>proven
>editorial fatigue
>Everyone accepts

>>19135934
>I could give less of a shit what "the most intelligent" people have to say
I understand this, which is why you hold the positions you do.
>to make me take a single step outside of physicalism you must have some insanely good argument you're hiding somewhere, but refusing to show.
The existence of the hard problem of consciousness is an issue which makes many scientists step out of physicalism into the realm of metaphysics.
>They also accept that molecules can combine into simple single cellular life forms.
There is actually no scientific understanding whatsoever on how the first single-celled organism actually came to be, and the problem of the transition from non-life to life is another issue for materialists. Most will foolishly assume that the theory of lightning striking a pool is an accepted explanation, when the most advanced and lauded chemists working in the field can not even understand how DNA, RNA, or carbohydrates could /ever/ form, much less into a coherent and LIVING cell, even given an infinite span of time.
>I have to throw out the entirety of physics and accept not only that something exists outside of it,
Obviously, you don't have to throw out the entirety of physics, but only change your understanding of it in a meta way - such that it cannot explain ALL of reality, at least until (if ever) there is an accepted and measurable physicalist solution to the hard problems of consciousness and life.
>but that your particular brand of religion is the one that got this right.
Almost every religion posits a non-physical ultimate reality, and a human soul. This discussion is more fundamental than Christianity, which can obviously only be accepted rationally after these types of conversations conclude. How can I expect one to believe that Christ is God if they don't even believe God exists?

>>19135933
>If the original manuscript of Matthew had that title, then we would expect that all subsequent manuscripts would be entitled "the Gospel of Matthew", which they were. This suggests that the original manuscript was correctly attributed to Matthew, who was its original author.
You are missing the point. If the original manuscript was attributed to Matthew, then every manuscript copy would have the title in the same place. They don't. This can only be if there was no title or attribution in the original manuscript.
>Besides the fact that Markan priority is not a consensus, let's grant it for the sake of argument - there is still no definitive reason to believe that Matthew had to have been post-70AD, unless one implicitly rejects the existence of prophecy. It is entirely possible that the original manuscript was composed far earlier than 70AD.
Mark is pretty securely post-70AD because it uses Latinisms and allusions to the Roman occupation of Judea after that date. For example, the denarius coin in the "render unto Caesar" pericope only circulated post-70. Likewise the Gerasene pigs who say they are "legion" is an oblique attack on the Legio X Fretensis who had a boar standard and occupied Jerusalem after the war.

>>19135971
>then every manuscript copy would have the title in the same place.
?

>>19135933
The fact is that the Gospels contain explicit Aramaic phrases and transliterations, as well as preserving statements which preserve salience and word-play when translated back into Aramaic.
There are very few if any of these, other than places where Aramaic was used for colour by the author, like Tolstoy having his characters use French phrases. And where we can find Aramaic wordplay there is a far, far greater density of Greek wordplay in the gospels (for example, the "born above/again" pun in John, that only works in Greek).
>There is also no reason to believe that the early Christian community did not adopt Koine Greek as a sort of lingua-franca between the communities of early believers - indeed, this seems to be the case, especially considering its prominence in the Roman territories - and as such, the original Gospels could have been dictated by Aramaic speakers (such as the apostles) to Greek scribes (which is exactly what Paul explicitly states is happening many times in his epistles, for example). Not to mention the fact that bilingual people existed in the early community, and therefore it is plausible that the apostles themselves came to speak the language of the communities they evangelized.
There is no Aramaic substrate to any of the gospels. They are original productions in Greek. Of course this was the language of the early Christian community, but it means we should be very careful about attributing any of the sayings in the gospels to Jesus directly.

>>19135957
>Council in Trullo
Literally only attended by Eastern bishops, not ecumenical, and never accepted by the see of Rome (far pre-schism) as being authoritative over Christendom, but only a demonstration of Byzantine tradition.

>As for the rest of your post, it's just you saying that death is purely a biological matter detached from spirituality
I clearly said it was both a biological and theological matter.
>It's an absurd proposition since death has to do with our salvation and with Christ's incarnation as necessary to defeat death
/human/ death.
>It's a spiritual and salvific matter
Where is it infallibly taught that one's position on animal/plant death before the fall is salvific?
>not an empirical/biological one like geocentrism
It is both, as one could say geocentrism is theological in that it demonstrates the centrality of the cosmos as centered on the human experience, and that all of creation was designed around the Earth as its center point.

>Also, Arianism also had support from a lot of apostolic Christians, this does not make it correct.
It was condemned at an infallible ecumenical council.

>>19135767
>the things that groups of men that weren't in the Bible decide are infallible

>>19135979
Think how every manuscript copy has Matthew 1:1 in the same place at the start of the gospel. That means Matthew 1:1 was in that place originally. If we found Matthew 1:1 all over different places in different manuscripts then it would have to have been added later.

A different example is the endings of Mark: in some manuscripts it ends abruptly. In other manuscripts we have a "short ending", in yet other manuscripts a "long ending". Since different manuscripts have copied different endings this means the fuller endings were added onto Mark while copying manuscripts without them.

The titles to the gospels are more like the endings to Mark than Matthew 1:1, that is we find them all over the place in the manuscript. So they must have been added later. You get me?

/6EmXguuK
New pagan server

>>19135992
>There are very few if any of these
The incredibly compelling part is that they exist at all, if the authors are supposedly pseudepigraphal Greeks falsely attributing words to the historical Jesus. Matthew 23:24 is just one example of an obvious example of Aramaic wordplay, which is accepted by scholars.
>There is no Aramaic substrate to any of the gospels. They are original productions in Greek
Runs contrary to even your scholars' position of an Aramaic Q source.

>>19135971
>If the original manuscript was attributed to Matthew, then every manuscript copy would have the title in the same place
That literally doesn't follow. All extant gospels attributing the gospel to Matthew is clear supporting evidence that the gospel was originally attributed to Matthew. That this attribution is found in different places does not provide evidence against this claim.
>Mark is pretty securely post-70AD
Except that is the opinion of some scholars, but it is by no means a consensus. There is a valid case to be made for earlier dates, and scholars do hold those positions.
>Likewise the Gerasene pigs who say they are "legion" is an oblique attack on the Legio X Fretensis who had a boar standard and occupied Jerusalem after the war.
This is simply speculation.

>>19135954
>Imagine getting punished because of random dice throw in your head making you say things
The concept of free will arises from the need to rationalize necessary punishment in the first place. If everything is predetermined and nobody makes choices then it seems kind of fucked up to jail, torture or kill someone for doing the behavior that they literally had no choice in determining. But we know we have to jail or kill people who are violent and threaten the social order to begin with, and we don't feel bad about it because it's necessary. Saying it was a murderer's "fault" or that he "chose" to kill is just a shorthand way of saying you think he deserves punishment, which is a shorthand way of saying you'll be happy if he is punished. It's entirely a legal concept.

>>19135965
>The existence of the hard problem of consciousness is an issue which makes many scientists step out of physicalism into the realm of metaphysics.
And vice versa. The hard problem of consciousness was instrumental in making me go further into physicalism. The very premise that experience can be something detached of physicalism, but still experienced by physical beings, leads to the question "what process governs this interface", which invariably leads you to poke brains and study physical objects. To me it's the greatest cope ever when we try to run away from physics, on this matter.
>There is actually no scientific understanding whatsoever on how the first single-celled organism actually came to be,
Let me refresh you with an overlook on the current state of laboratory reproducible results:
>Atoms of single elements into organic molecules (achieved)
>organic molecules into every aminoacid observed in every life form known (achieved)
>organic molecules into every RNA basis (achieved)
>artificial rna-like strand that self replicate (achieved)
>single celled organisms evolving into multi cellular under selective pressure (achieved)
>single celled organisms displaying evolutionary adaptations over decades of observation (achieved)
>multicell animals displaying evolution of features over decades of observation (achieved)

Each and every one of these things were strongholds that religious people say "well science never did this", until it did. Many Christians, from my experience, are not even aware that science has done all of the above in laboratories already.
So yeah, they haven't figured out exactly one crucial middle step yet, getting rna basis to spontaneously form those rna-like molecules, but for you to say that we have "absolutely no idea" is so beyond dishonest it makes arguing difficult. We have an extremely compelling story being formed when you consider all of the above, and notice I didn't even mention fossils or carbon dating or any of that.
>when the most advanced and lauded chemists
You really need to let go of that, man. I get that in sunday school they showed you some quotes of chemists and early quantum theorists from the fucking 100~200 years ago, but science has advanced a lot since then. Stop pretending you're up to date on things, because it's embarrassingly obvious you're not.

>>19136060
>>19135965
Finishing this post, because it was too long:

>physicalist solution to the hard problems of consciousness
I can give you one right now but you're just gonna say you don't like it. It's the solution I use for myself, if that counts for anything. I've stated it multiple times in this thread, even. Much of the problem arises from humans trying to bend the universe into their definitions of abstract words, that need to have no bearing on reality.
The problem of evil, the problem of consciousness, all arise from the necessity of humans to have everything as a pattern that is intuitive and easy to visualize. Consciousness arising as an emergent property of matter doesn't feel intuitive, so people throw that idea out. I just don't value my intuition that highly that the universe has to bend over for me. There is no need to accept extra-physical entities in my view. I remain unconvinced by anything you (or those smarter than me) said. I owe this much to myself, intellectually, don't you think?

>>19135786
>Because humans are created, the Logos is uncreated
But wasn't Christ fully human and fully divine?

>>19136053
>If everything is predetermined and nobody makes choices then it seems kind of fucked up to jail
It is kind of fucked up, and going to hell is even more fucked up. But again, it's so imperative we frame it in a way that's intuitive and feels good to our human minds, that we rationalize everything. Even if a child was born in absolute porverty and had to steal an apple once just not to starve, and maybe this would be forgiven in half the world, some place could rationalize cutting that child's hand. If one doesn't value their intuition and good feels above natural reality however, one would notice that even the punishment is predetermined, just like the crime.

>>19136096
and by this I mean: how can the uncreated Logos bear the simultaneous property of the created being of man in Christ?

>>19136096
rofl no... the jews and muslims are bang on when they say
>implying god can die
unless you mean to say christ did not die on a cross

>>19136060
I respect your intellectual honesty, but I believe that, in fact, you are the who is out of touch with the current state of complete ignorance on how the most basic necessities for the transition from non-life to life are formed. We are COMPLETELY ignorant of this.
See this video for more information by actual respected scholars in the field, and pay close attention to Dr. James Tour's points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJgr38h_3H0

>>19136070
The thing is, your explanation is not an empirical physicalist explanation, but rather an unfalsifiable metaphysical position which you are, ironically, touting as a contra-metaphysical point. You are not using any processes of empirical measurement or observation to come to this conclusion, but are rather positing something which you do not know for sure to be the case, by faith in your own ideas. This is very clearly in the realm of metaphysics, and to deny this is just to lack self-awareness.

>>19136143
>implying the second person of the Trinity ceased to exist when Jesus was crucified
You don't understand Trinitarian theology, no offense.

>>19136159
did god die on the cross

>>19130439
It’s called compatibilism retard

>>19136032
>The incredibly compelling part is that they exist at all, if the authors are supposedly pseudepigraphal Greeks falsely attributing words to the historical Jesus. Matthew 23:24 is just one example of an obvious example of Aramaic wordplay, which is accepted by scholars.
That there are a handful of possibilities of Aramaic wordplay says very little against the Greek character of the entire rest of the gospel.
Runs contrary to even your scholars' position of an Aramaic Q source.
Who thinks Q is Aramaic? If it was then it was somehow translated into Greek in exactly the same way by both Luke and Matthew, which is silly. Like the rest of the gospels it uses quotations from the Greek Septuagint anyway.
>That literally doesn't follow. All extant gospels attributing the gospel to Matthew is clear supporting evidence that the gospel was originally attributed to Matthew. That this attribution is found in different places does not provide evidence against this claim.
You still don't get the point. If "The Gospel According to Matthew" was in the original manuscript, all subsequent copies of that manuscript would have copied it in the same place. It didn't. Therefore the attribution is not original to the text.

>>19136170
Jesus Christ is the incarnate second person of the Trinity. He experienced death in His human nature, but His spirit lived on. Thus, God died on the cross, but this does not imply that God ceased to exist, but only that the incarnate second person of the trinity experienced death in His human nature.

>>19136159
>and pay close attention to Dr. James Tour's points.
I consider myself a skeptical and intellectual honest person, so I'll watch this. I have some intuition on the kind of content I'm about to watch, but that doesn't matter.
However let me point out two things:
1 - Debates are useless as a truth searching endeavor. "The art of being right" is a good primer on this. The fact you pointed me to a debate rather than a long series of written works and experiments is very telling.
2 - Sending me a youtube link of a 1 hour long video doesn't really answer the main point of my post, where I showed you a very compelling case for the evolution of life from inorganic elements.

It would be at least very nice for you to say out loud, with all the words, "yeah, just because there is that single one point that hasn't been done yet I'll pretend like all of the other reproducible evidence is not good at all, I value my intuition and feelings and faith above all laboratory results in the world".

With this in mind, I'll watch the video.

>>19136191
>says very little against the Greek character of the entire rest of the gospel.
It says that the original source has a high probability of being an Aramaic speaker, who is relating actual Aramaic speech.
>Who thinks Q is Aramaic?
Pierson Parker and Maurice Casey, to name two.
>If "The Gospel According to Matthew" was in the original manuscript, all subsequent copies of that manuscript would have copied it in the same place.
This does not logically follow. It could be that some scribes placed the title at the end of the copy because it was a more common tradition in their area. The fact that even one likely alternative explanation exists for this fact is evidence against your point. I think it is far more likely that the attribution was present in the earliest copies, because we see it in all extant copies. Regardless, it seems we reach an impasse, and either way I respect your intellectual honesty.

>>19136209
>Debates are useless as a truth searching endeavor.
It is a good opportunity to hear out the arguments of educated, respected, and extremely intelligent men who are very competent in their field. Whether or not one agrees with their rhetoric should not influence one's opinion on the claims they are presenting, weighed dispassionately.
>where I showed you a very compelling case for the evolution of life from inorganic elements.
The entire reason I presented the video is because I believe that, in light of the facts, your position is actually quite irrational, and not at all compelling (though understandable - I also used to hold to that belief).
>yeah, just because there is that single one point that hasn't been done
The formation of RNA, DNA, and Carbohydrates from non-life is by no means "one [single] point", but a series of extremely salient issues which your hypothesis must simply gloss over, betting on a miracle as much as I am (in your case, that non-life could have formed into life through naturalistic processes given enough time, despite no evidence supporting that theory, and all evidence seeming to count against it).

>>19136264
Let us be absolutely precise in our language here. The person you are basing your entire position on is James Tour, yes? I'm currently watching the video, as well as looking up the mountain of literature that addresses specifically James Tour, so if it turns out your entire position is based on this one guy, that would make it easier for me to respond.

>The formation of RNA,
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get at. I want you to say with all the words.
"I understand that we have observed spontaneous formation of organic molecules up to all the basis of RNA in laboratory, as well as RNA-like molecules duplicating with darwinian style increases in frequency, but because we haven't observed those basis spontaneously forming the RNA strands yet I believe science has absolutely no clue how RNA ever formed, or how life ever arose from that."
Do you stand by this statement? It would be helpful for other people to know that you understand the state of the art of the knowledge on this topic, and that you still believe this constitutes "science not having any idea". It would make it easier for them to judge the character of your position.

>>19136290
I will make a qualification to that statement.

"I understand that we have observed spontaneous formation of organic molecules up to all the basis of RNA in laboratory, as well as RNA-like molecules duplicating with darwinian style increases in frequency, but because we haven't observed those basis spontaneously forming the RNA strands yet, and have no idea of the naturalistic mechanism whereby this might even potentially happen given a time period approaching infinity, I believe science has absolutely no clue how RNA ever formed, in addition to being similarly clueless on DNA and carbohydrates - and that based upon this complete lack of knowledge of the most basic constituent elements of life, it is intellectually dishonest to say that it is likely that life arose from naturalistic processes, and all proponents of that idea should add the qualification that it is a baseless hypothesis."

>>19135902
At least I don't attribute everything unexplainable to some magical force whose last appearance was over 2000 years ago :/

>>19136264
>It says that the original source has a high probability of being an Aramaic speaker, who is relating actual Aramaic speech.
It says that there's one phrase which may have an Aramaic origin, and if so has been translated into Greek at some point. Put against Matthew copying Greek sources entirely verbatim (Mark and Q) and when referencing the Old Testament quotes from the Greek Septuagint.
>Pierson Parker and Maurice Casey, to name two.
I think they hold a minority position.
>This does not logically follow. It could be that some scribes placed the title at the end of the copy because it was a more common tradition in their area.
Which would actually support that the gospels originally circulated pseudonymously, because the only way putting the attribution of the gospel at the end of the work could become a local tradition is because a title wasn't present in the original manuscript.

when did lit become the house of so many christian larpers?

>>19136460
>It says that there's one phrase which may have an Aramaic origin
As well as many other explicit Aramaic statements, and references to historically accurate Second Temple Judaic life.
>Put against Matthew copying Greek sources entirely verbatim (Mark and Q)
There is no evidence that Q, if it even existed, was originally Greek.
>and when referencing the Old Testament quotes from the Greek Septuagint.
I think it makes total sense that the Old Testament citations in a Koine Greek work would be from the readily-available Septuagint, even if the author's first language was Aramaic.
>I think they hold a minority position.
Which in no way invalidates their scholarly claims.
>because the only way putting the attribution of the gospel at the end of the work could become a local tradition is because a title wasn't present in the original manuscript.
I think that if you are seriously going to posit that the "only way" placing attribution at the end of the text could become a local tradition is by the Gospel of Matthew being pseudepigraphal, you are just being a bit intellectually dishonest. What about if other works circulating in the area prior to the authorship of the Gospel also had a tradition of being attributed at the end of the text, and scribes recording Matthew simply conformed to that local standard? Regardless, I fail to see any convincing reason why I should not believe that a work with a ubiquitously present attribution, which it is never found without (even in the earliest extant manuscripts), and which is attested in the earliest traditions and writings, should somehow be described as pseudepigraphal because of the opinions of some modern liberal scholars.

>>19130966
Fly away and dont come back

>>19136264
>10 minutes into this retarded video, the two parties say they agree about the origin of life being unexplained by science, but disagree on whether intelligent design is a thing or not.
Fuck me why are you like this. I'm actually pissed off now. I'm pissed off at myself for giving you the benefit of the doubt. That's exactly why debating shit is useless in this format.
>20 minutes into the video:
The entire argument is just that things are unlikely, right? That's the single only argument this man has, and that's it, yeah?
"There's so many ways you can combine carbon atoms, trilions and trillions, it's just so unlikely".
That's when he doesn't flat out lie about shit like sayign aminoacids have never been produced from scratch in a laboratory.
Also, "we just have no fucking idea how it's done" or something. I get a feeling if this man saw a plant generating carbohydrates in front of him, right now in 2021, he would say "see, we have no idea", and keep yelling to the plant "there's no fuckign way you can do this it's just so unlikely AHHH STOP GENERATING CARBOHYDRATES RIGHT NOW IF EXPERT CHEMISTS CAN'T DO IT THEN PLANTS CAN'T DO IT EITHER".
The fact he literally, and I do mean the right meaning of literally, employs those "Art of being right" fallacies down to a T when speaking and yelling and shit, makes me infinitely disgusted at both him and you for trying to pass this shit as intellectually honest or valid.
At this point I'm pausing the video and studying materials that summarize his main points of view, because I assume you're not expecting me to watch 1 hour of some retard speaking about things he doesn't fully understand as if it proves something.
>AHAHAHA ATHEISTS BTFO can't even finish the video
fine, watch these, in their entirety, and give me a detailed rundown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html

What you found is one chemist that just doesn't like to think about unlikely events as possible, which is understandable considering the framework that he openly admits (https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/personal-statement/)) to be a deeply religious person that believes only in salvation through Christ, meaning he has a clear conflict of interest for ever looking into things that go against his premise.

Your claim that there were all of those intelligent scientists supporting this, again, was (as VERY expected) a complete lie.The fact you sent me this video and person as basis of this claim means you must think "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" counts as proof, when that document fails to even use the basic wording of the area in question, by still wrongly calling the modern synthesis theory of evolution as "Darwinism" and equating "evolution" solely to "natural selection + randomness".

>>19136264
To finish up. You are really just another lying Christian that has to misrepresent the scientific understanding of things for ideological reasons, and it's entirely impossible to convince you of anything because you have a tremendous conflict of interest.
It is literally impossible to have an intellectual debate with you. You can say whatever you want in response to this, but you at the very least made that much clear. Any further sources or replies I might post are aimed at other people that might find them enlightening if they still haven't been poisoned by this fallacious thinking. But it's just so fucking sad and painful, because you actually made me think you were onto something there, like some kind of new knowledge. Motherfucker. Why the fuck are you all so predictable. I'm legitimately sad.

>>19136373
I attribute everything to the same entity; 'God of the gaps' is a strawman invented by Reddit fedora atheists. The very fact that the universe continues to exist from one moment to the next, and the laws of physics continue to operate, and objects with momentum maintain that momentum from one moment to the next, are all in fact a constant demonstration of God's power. You only forget how amazing these things are to behold because you're used to them. If you lived in a fantasy universe, you would be completely jaded and unfazed by witnessing literal magic with your own eyes too. The fact is, the universes of Harry Potter or LOTR are not very much more amazing than the real universe. 99.999% of the amazing things in Harry Potter, such as existence itself and the entire earth, humans themselves and other organisms, consciousness and experience, beauty, love, physics and physical interaction of objects with each other, are all real.

>>19136627
This is the most retarded post that has ever been posted in the history of this board.
By the way, since we are in a literature board and all, you could at the very least correctly attribute the origin of "god of the gaps" to Nietzsche.

I fucking abhor zoomers that can only understand the world in terms of Harry pottern and social media references.

>>19136574
>The entire argument is just that things are unlikely, right?
No, there is much more depth to the argument - the main crux is that there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, and so to say that it is the most likely explanation is injecting prior faith-based axioms into the science, without doing due diligence to actually back up one's position.
>That's the single only argument this man has, and that's it, yeah?
Nope, you really need to calm down and watch this incredibly accomplished scientist (Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, prolific inventor, R&D Scientist of the Year, etc.) with an impartial and unbiased perspective. You are letting a challenge towards your preconceived notions get you angry, instead of actually understanding what he is saying here.
> I get a feeling if this man saw a plant generating carbohydrates in front of him, right now in 2021, he would say "see, we have no idea", and keep yelling to the plant "there's no fuckign way you can do this it's just so unlikely AHHH STOP GENERATING CARBOHYDRATES RIGHT NOW IF EXPERT CHEMISTS CAN'T DO IT THEN PLANTS CAN'T DO IT EITHER".
The entire issue is how these carbohydrates came to be from naturalistic processes pre-life, so a living being which requires them to exist producing them is not cogent to the topic at all.
>At this point I'm pausing the video and studying materials that summarize his main points of view,
Is this really the extent of your intellectual honesty? Being unable to listen to one of the most accomplished chemists on the planet speak for a single hour?
>one chemist that just doesn't like to think about unlikely events as possible
Can you show any evidence whatsoever that life could have formed by naturalistic processes? Or is that "unlikely event" (really a series of extremely unlikely events happening in rapid succession with each stage of the initial development being perfectly preserved from decay in an extremely inhospitable environment) simply a faith-based assertion with no evidence behind it?
>to be a deeply religious person that believes only in salvation through Christ, meaning he has a clear conflict of interest for ever looking into things that go against his premise
Like he said, it does not matter to him whether there is a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis, because his faith is rooted in the epistemological basis for the resurrection.
>Your claim that there were all of those intelligent scientists supporting this, again, was [...] a complete lie
What I said was, quote:
"the most advanced and lauded chemists working in the field can not even understand how DNA, RNA, or carbohydrates could /ever/ form, much less into a coherent and LIVING cell, even given an infinite span of time."
Which is 100% true. There is no accepted naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis.

>>19136585
>You are really just another lying Christian that has to misrepresent the scientific understanding of things for ideological reasons
I have not misrepresented the scientific understanding of abiogenesis at all. You are free to refute any of my claims, or the claims of Dr. Tour from that video, instead of just being angry.
>it's entirely impossible to convince you of anything because you have a tremendous conflict of interest
I would happily change my perspective to a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis if you could prove it. The entire scientific community would also probably laud you as a genius, and award you the Nobel Prize - but sadly, you are only positing baseless hypotheses, and can't actually back up your statement.
>It is literally impossible to have an intellectual debate with you
We are currently debating, so that would only be the case if you run away from the debate, as you implied in your next statement:
>Any further sources or replies I might post are aimed at other people
Is it very intellectually honest to run away from a discussion because you are emotionally perturbed by a world-renowned chemist's scholarly opinion on abiogenesis?
>poisoned by this fallacious thinking
Feel free to demonstrate any fallacies Dr. Tour or I used.
>you actually made me think you were onto something there, like some kind of new knowledge.
What I am presenting is not new knowledge at all - it is commonly and universally accepted in the field of abiogenesis that there is no known naturalistic theory explaining how the four constituent elements came to be. The fact that you are shocked by this is evidence of your unfamiliarity with the state of OOL research, not my "fallacious thinking".

>>19130966
Tripfag has no argument. What a surprise.

>>19136695
I fucking knew it. I predicted it. Holy fucking shit.

Look at what I said on this post >>19135934

I KNEW you were gonna post this. Fuck me. Fuck me a million times for giving you the benefit of the doubt. The quote is entirely fake by the way. Heisenberg never said that. I also said something about sunday church and you grabbing random quotes of the fathers of quantum mechanics, didn't I? Do you start to catch a glimpse that your entire life is a tiny box that is well understood from the perspective of someone that has read and studied more than you and is actually part of the scientific world? Lol. You literally eat shit out of the ass of shit like the "Discovery Institute" and random tiny youtube channels that regurgitate the same points over and over but you think you're being so unique and ground breaking.
Can I challenge you to stop lying for 24 hours at least? Or at least the duration of this thread? You should fucking be at least courteous enough to apologize for posting a directly false quote. Can you have at least that level of decency? Aren't christians supposed to refrain from lying or some shit?
Can you admit you just posted a directly false quote?


>there is no naturalistic explanation
No, the crux is that it is unlikely. He admits within the first few minutes of the video you posted that he accepts there is a very very tiny chance that these things happened naturally. He literally says that with his own words.

> so a living being which requires them to exist producing them is not cogent to the topic at all.

It shows, literally, that nature can do things even if human biochemists still can't. Which is one of the (very retarded) arguments he makes. "I could give a million biochemists all the lipids and ask them to make a cell membrane and they wouldn't be able to". Even if that were true (and I'm not even sure it is), that doesn't mean natural processes can't do it. They in fact do it all the time. We see it happening.
It shows directly that nature can do things that are baffling to humans, and that's not any kind of paradox. Your favorite chemist just doesn't like to extend this to the origin of life because he has a conflict of interest. The same way cells make other membranes, or planst make carbohydrates, and biochemists maybe can't do either exactly the same in a lab setting, should show him that natural processes could create life even if we can't immediately do exactly the same in a lab either.

>>19136726
I posted 3 hours of videos + 1 essay refuting every single position. I expect you to be watching them, and I'm still waiting for your apology for posting a directly fake quote.

>>19136776
God gave you all of that power of thought and this is what you use it for and couldn't even get trips.

>>19136794
Would you relinquish your faith based on random digits?

>>19136693

>>19135885
Genesis 2:15-17 DRM (Douah-Rheims) 15And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise for pleasure, to dress it, and keep it. 16And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: 17But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

God speaks to them DIRECTLY and EXPLICITELY and makes them fully aware of the consequences of eating the fruit.

Additionally there is no angel present at this time or mentioned. Even if you were someone that wanted to argue that the serpent wasn't Satan (it is) there is still no angel mentioned. If you are NOT trolling you seriously need to re-read Genesis if this is your hang-up on Christian moral theology. Maybe you're reading a really broken translation? But don't take my word for it, just go to Biblehub. You can reference multiple editions simultaneously. They WERE tempted, but not by an angel, and even if it came to them as an angel and the bible is using the term serpent to refer to the actions of the being, and not a literal snake, again, God does directly inform them their actions would result in death. God bless man, take care.

>>19136840
Sorry, let me correct myself.
I fucking abhor zoomers that can only understand the world in terms of Harry Potter, social media references and recycled 2016+ wojaks.

>>19136841
>Douay*-Rheims
https://biblehub.com/drb/genesis/2.htm

>>19136851

>>19135756
>kekw
Go fry your brain on weed, you child.

>>19136776
>Heisenberg never said that
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, his protege, appears to consider it an adage in Die Geschichte der Natur. The burden of proof is on you to show that he never said it, although I will admit that it could be a potential misattribution, as well as a potentially genuine quote - regardless, Heisenberg was still a devout Christian, and made several quotes attesting the same: "We can console ourselves that the good Lord God would know the position of the [subatomic] particles, thus He would let the causality principle continue to have validity", for example.
>You literally eat shit out of the ass of shit like the "Discovery Institute
Pretty disgusting state of your mind there, man.
>you think you're being so unique and ground breaking.
I'm simply presenting the orthodox case in modern abiogenesis, which you have yet to refute.
>No, the crux is that it is unlikely.
Can you give me a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis, and shock the scientific world? That there is none is his entire thesis, which you would know if you didn't rage-quit 20 minutes into the video.
>He admits within the first few minutes of the video you posted that he accepts there is a very very tiny chance that these things happened naturally
That there is a non-zero chance does not mean there is a naturalistic explanation. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is an explanation (spoiler: there is no naturalistic theory of abiogenesis).
>that nature can do things even if human biochemists still can't
The entire point is that carbohydrates are necessary for abiogenesis, so your point that a biotic being can produce carbohydrates is literally not pertinent - the question is how the first carbohydrate came to be, which is, again the entire crux of his position.
>that doesn't mean natural processes can't do it
We know that biotic processes can produce carbohydrates. That is not cogent to our discussion of abiogenesis, which is asking how these things came to be in the ABSENCE of biotic life.
>should show him that natural processes could create life
There is a non-zero chance that they could, but that does not mean there is a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis, which is exactly what he (and I) are arguing. The fact that you are unable to realize this simple point belies your butthurt, friend.
>>19136781
>3 hours of videos + 1 essay refuting every single position
Explain to me how you know those 3 hours of videos refute any of his positions, when you literally haven't had time to watch a single one of them? Talk about intellectually dishonest.

Face it - you are getting extremely irrationally buttmad at the orthodox position in OOL studies, which is that there is no naturalistic theory for abiogenesis. It doesn't matter how much you seethe at this, it is literally the truth.

>>19130439
>What is free will?
I seriously think you fedora tipping retards are only spamming this out of spite to get on Christians that didn't bother thinking about such things.

>>19136096
>>19136131
^?

>>19136373
God is present today in the form of the Holy Spirit just as he was before Christ. If you think that belief in the Holy Spirit or any metaphysical being is "magical thinking" there is literally nothing that is going to be said here that will change your mind. I can't speak for all Christians, but you can be a Christian AND a skeptic. Even one of Jesus' apostles, Thomas, was. Nothing wrong with you questioning, you should. Question everything. But as frustrating as it is for those of you that insist that answers must be concrete, the burden of proof on the Christian will always go unfulfilled because that is the very nature and mystery of Christianity itself, for even when miracles are performed, they're just going to be broken down scientifically and when gaps exist in the current understanding of science, the Atheist will still not acknowledge the presence and works of God, but chalk it up to "unexplainable". Even if you never come around to believing in Christ as God, I will pray that instead of being completely dismissive of the idea of God, you explore all the scientific reasoning you can first and, at the VERY least, consider that, albeit with an exceptionally low probability, there may still be a slimmer-of-a-chance that God exists and can perform acts that will never fully be explained scientifically. God wanted humans to be rational and reasonable, so glad to see you're putting it to use. Just hope your heart isn't so closed off that you're completely against the idea entirely. God bless man, stay safe.

>>19136885
Dude, again, don't Christians go to hell or something for lying?
How is the burden of proof on me if you're claiming Heisenberg said something. Do you think you're arguing against one of those retards you go to church with?
Not only the burden of proof is on you, but you can easily prove to me Heisenberg said that by just telling me which text this occurs in. It's as simple as that.
>, and shock the scientific world?
This doesn't work when you're arguing with a scientist. The standard theory of evolution is the position I've been defending this entire thread. Your "shocking" refusal is just a retarded misunderstanding of statistics sprinkled with the intellectual dishonesty you make obvious at every turn. (For instance, still not having openly admitted to posting a completely fake quote you haven't even taken the time to verify).
>Explain to me how you know those 3 hours of videos refute any of his positions,
I've watched 40 minutes of the first video in my post, but only 20 minutes of yours. I felt that the other video presents references in a more intellectually honest format, as well as the arguments, and I didn't feel like wasting time watching a retard screaming things are impossible and never specifying it further. Again, for someone with your level of knowledge and understanding of reality it shouldn't be a problem at all to watch the material I posted.

>Face it - you are getting extremely irrationally buttmad at the orthodox position in OOL studies,
You behaved absolutely in a predictable way, posting things that I said you would post even though I warned ahead, and you're an entirely tired parody of conservative think tans of the US. I'm buttmad because I expected more of you, and I expected you not to post exactly the bullshit I said you would.
You can scream to death that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible, as every new paper on the topic is published, until the fortunate hopeful day in the future where we start ostracizing you poisonous liars out of modern societies. But judging by the space your retardation still has in the limelight you probably still have at least a few more decades to pretend like you're doing honest intellectual inquiry.

>>19136947
There is a reasonable probability that the quote is from Heisenberg. It was referenced by his protege Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker. Not all quotes are necessarily found in a written corpus - some are found in an oral tradition, such as from a teacher to a student.
>The standard theory of evolution is the position I've been defending this entire thread
And I do not contest that evolution by natural selection is likely the mechanism whereby life came to be. The discussion is regarding abiogenesis, not what happened subsequent to the first cell developing in an environment where it could reproduce and mutate.
>Your "shocking" refusal is just a retarded misunderstanding of statistics
Care to point out the misunderstanding, rather than make another baseless accusation?
>didn't feel like wasting time watching a retard screaming things are impossible and never specifying it further
How humble - he was named a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry's Centenary Prize, inducted into the National Academy of Inventors, named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine. He won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, and was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Reuters. He won the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society, was named the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS, and the Honda Innovation Award in 2005 for his invention of Nanocars. He is one of the most cited and accomplished chemists on the entire planet who is alive today.

Yet he is the "retard", and you are the intelligent one. How prideful and arrogant does you have to be to make claims like this without being self-aware of how silly you sound?

>You can scream to death that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible,
Again, that is not my position, nor Dr. Tours (as I have repeatedly pointed out) - the position is that there is no naturalistic theory of abiogenesis, and that despite that obvious and accepted fact, people like you still seethe upon hearing it. I am not making any claim of impossibility. At this point, I feel like you are just seething too hard to actually read what I am saying in my posts, as I don't really understand how you can keep missing the central part of my entire argument (and Dr. Tour's). That there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is unconstroversial in the scientific community, and until you rebut that, I will have to assume you are literally too flustered to even let what I am saying pass through your reptile brain's danger filter, into your conscious mind.

>>19136947
There is a reasonable probability that the quote is from Heisenberg. It was referenced by his protege Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker. Not all quotes are necessarily found in a written corpus - some are found in an oral tradition, such as from a teacher to a student.
>The standard theory of evolution is the position I've been defending this entire thread
And I do not contest that evolution by natural selection is likely the mechanism whereby complex life came to be AFTER the existence of the first life form. The discussion is regarding abiogenesis, BEFORE the existence of the first life form, not what happened subsequent to the first cell developing in an environment where it could reproduce and mutate.
>Your "shocking" refusal is just a retarded misunderstanding of statistics
Care to point out the misunderstanding, rather than make another baseless accusation?
>didn't feel like wasting time watching a retard screaming things are impossible and never specifying it further
How humble - he was named a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry's Centenary Prize, inducted into the National Academy of Inventors, named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine. He won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, and was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Reuters. He won the (((Feynman))) Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society, was named the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS, and the Honda Innovation Award in 2005 for his invention of Nanocars. He is one of the most cited and accomplished chemists on the entire planet who is alive today.

Yet he is the "retard", and you are the intelligent one. How prideful and arrogant does you have to be to make claims like this without being self-aware of how silly you sound?

>You can scream to death that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible,
Again, that is not my position, nor Dr. Tours (as I have repeatedly pointed out) - the position is that there is no naturalistic theory of abiogenesis, and that despite that obvious and accepted fact, people like you still seethe upon hearing it. I am not making any claim of impossibility. At this point, I feel like you are just seething too hard to actually read what I am saying in my posts, as I don't really understand how you can keep missing the central part of my entire argument (and Dr. Tour's). That there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is uncontroversial in the scientific community, and until you rebut that, I will have to assume you are literally too flustered to even let what I am saying pass through your reptile brain's danger filter, into your conscious mind.

>>19137031
>How prideful and arrogant does you have to be to make claims like this without being self-aware of how silly you sound?
Not arrogant at all. A scientist, no matter how good his CV, is a retard if he starts making unscientific claims and engaging in sophistry while pretending to do science.
There are plenty of examples of nobel laureates engaging in the same behavior. This is again nothing new, unless you're only feeding yourself with cherry picked american conservative think thank points of view.
If we were arguing the things he won all those awards for you might even have a point, but you don't. He essentially knows as much about evolution as he knows about heart surgery: zero. Would you allow him to perform heart surgery on you?
Also, to the same effect. I have an h-index of 10. What is yours? This is irrelevant to me of course, because I know this kind of argument is unscientific, but maybe to you this helps you snap out of your own "arrogance".
>Care to point out the misunderstanding, rather than make another baseless accusation?
Yes, you actually inadvertently made this easier for me with this post. You made the claim:
>And I do not contest that evolution by natural selection is likely the mechanism whereby complex life came to be AFTER the existence of the first life form. The discussion is regarding abiogenesis, BEFORE the existence of the first life form, not what happened subsequent to the first cell developing in an environment where it could reproduce and mutate.
Which is one of his common claims too. That selection cannot occur before the first life form, and as such evolution cannot occur in a prebiotic world. If you weren't so scared to watch the video I linked, you'd see that both from theoretical grounds in physics and biochemistry we could expect non-living molecules to engage in auto-catalysis, and that in fact this should be the expected behavior under the conditions the world was in at the time. These theoretical claims produce measurable consequences, that were indeed measured, and I'm gonna do you the favor of linking the laboratory results here:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/20/10699
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652413/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19416904/

(You can also start linking actual studies backing your claims, I'm really not gonna be offended if you do. We'd actually be doing some semblance of science if you did that.)

These 3 papers show that competition can exist in the absence of any form of life, and that even inorganic systems can self replicate with competition. So the claim that selection can only exist with life forms is categorically false, with experimental confirmation of thereotical predictions going back to the second law of thermodynamics. If these 3 papers can't convince you selection exists in the absence of life, nothing ever will.

>>19137116
>A scientist, no matter how good his CV, is a retard if he starts making unscientific claims
Care to reference a specific instance of him making an unscientific claim?
>He essentially knows as much about evolution as he knows about heart surgery: zero
His specialty is working to form elementary particles into complex structures, which is of great relevance when assessing OOL research. He has a far greater knowledge of the topic than you.
>to the same effect. I have an h-index of 10
He has an h-index of 150. You aren't even in the same league, and I have no idea if your field is even tangentially related.
>If these 3 papers can't convince you selection exists in the absence of life, nothing ever will.
You are totally moving the goalposts. The entire crux of the argument, which I have repeatedly restated, is that there is no naturalistic theory for how the four constituent elements of life came to be, and that any theory of abiogenesis requires an explanation of this - which is why there is no theory of abiogenesis. Just admit that you have literally no idea how life was created, and you can quit seething. I know they probably sold you primordial soup nonsense in university, but you have to understand that that is pseudo-scientific fan-fiction. For somebody who is trying to appear intellectually honest, it is quite telling that you still refuse to concede this obvious point, and that you couldn't even spend a single hour listening to one of the most credentialed chemists in the world have a jovial conversation with a friend. Hopefully you'll calm down and revisit his work with an impartial mind, but I doubt that will be the case, based on your animosity and inability to see the simple point I am making.

>>19136885
Not the person you've been engaging with, been enjoying your debate, but just wanted to correct you on one point in that the burden of proof would be on you in this instant regarding the quote, not him. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion for the affirmative; asking someone to prove that they did NOT say something is an unreasonable burden of proof. I'm with you on most other points that I understand. God bless you both.

>>19137215
>Care to reference a specific instance of him making an unscientific claim?
I did it on my previous post. Both of you claimed selection can't exist on a prebiotic earth, and I showed you this is incorrect by pointing you to the appropriate literature. You are undeniable engaging in unscientific sophistry now and completely lost my interest.
>You aren't even in the same league,
But i'm not a retard making unscientific claims, lel. I also didn't ask his h-index, I asked yours. It's 0, isn't it? It doesn't matter.
Good luck with eveything, retard. There's a good chance one day you'll be exposed for your sophistry in public, if you're ever brave enough to say the kind of shit you're saying here out loud, out there. The more I read about James Tour the more it's obvious he is slowly destroying his image as a researcher by being as adamantly arrogant as you, and refusing to accept there might be areas of science you don't understand.
You know, in the science world it's not crazy to claim Pauling was a great scientist in some regards, but a total biased retard on some others. This kind of thing is only contradictory if you're used to dogmatic thinking. Fortunately that will never be the case for me. I am intellectually free to accept the good sound work of people and to question them when they say wrong things.

>>19133353
The promise of rewards in an afterlife is very convenient and helps fill in the gaps of the mythology
>>19134009
>we rejected Him
Who's "we"? When did the baby reject Him?
>those rapes are chosen by the people that do them
But what about the baby? And no, you should never "grow up" about horrific things that happen in life.

>>19137267
I would like to point out that you still have not addressed the entire point of this discussion, and simply resorted to ad-hominem attacks. Once again, I will repeat the thesis I am defending here, which you have not managed to rebut in any way, shape, or form (as all reading can see):

>>19136347
"I understand that we have observed spontaneous formation of organic molecules up to all the basis of RNA in laboratory, as well as RNA-like molecules duplicating with darwinian style increases in frequency, but because we haven't observed those basis spontaneously forming the RNA strands yet, and have no idea of the naturalistic mechanism whereby this might even potentially happen given a time period approaching infinity, I believe science has absolutely no clue how RNA ever formed, in addition to being similarly clueless on DNA and carbohydrates - and that based upon this complete lack of knowledge of the most basic constituent elements of life, it is intellectually dishonest to say that it is likely that life arose from naturalistic processes, and all proponents of that idea should add the qualification that it is a baseless hypothesis."

>Both of you claimed selection can't exist on a prebiotic earth
Care to point out where he claimed this?
>Good luck with eveything, retard.
You're the one who needs it - you seem to be quite prideful, hateful, and egotistical, but hopefully it is just growing pains, and you don't die in this state. I hope God blesses you, and that you open up your heart to the truth that is already written on your heart - that God exists, the heavens testify His glory - Jesus Christ is Lord, and that He rose from the dead, and He knocks on the door. If you seek, you will find, and if you ask, it will be given to you.

>>19137235
Hey, thanks brother, me too. I should have been clearer in my wording, you are right. My point was that the evidence for my positive claim (although I admitted that it could potentially be misattributed) was a reference to the written works of Heisenberg's protege Carl von Weizsacker, who puts it forward as an adage (possibly from his mentor). I much prefer his quote here, though: ""We can console ourselves that the good Lord God would know the position of the [subatomic] particles, thus He would let the causality principle continue to have validity". It just illustrates even further that some of the most intelligent scientists to ever live have been theists who perfectly reconcile their scientific work and their religion, while only middle-of-the-bell-curve men reject God. God bless you too, brother!

>>19135273
see >>19137326

>>19137329
13:42 of the first video I posted has the clips of him saying it.
You also said:
>And I do not contest that evolution by natural selection is likely the mechanism whereby complex life came to be AFTER the existence of the first life form.
Which seems to imply you doubt natural selection played a role before the existence of the first life form. Which is part of why you don't accept this as a naturalistic view for the origin of life. Which is why I said it's convenient you said that, because I happened to have those 3 papers ready to give you.
>>19137235
If you're going to go by what that guy is saying, just be advised that he is routinely lying to you and appealing to your intuition, and not to your reason. It's not my place to dictate how people should view the world, but just be extra careful, such as in sentences like:
>> It just illustrates even further that some of the most intelligent scientists to ever live have been theists who perfectly reconcile their scientific work and their religion, while only middle-of-the-bell-curve men reject God.
Which is based just on an intuition, misattributed quotes, and just his general gut feeling. Other than 3 or 4 cherrypicked examples there's no basis to what this person is claiming, and the more you delve into the topic the more painful it becomes they all just repeat a very narrow set of dogmas spat out by the same think tanks. In his case in particular it's an american one called the "discovery institute".
By no means everyone has to be a scientist, but if you're curious about science I deeply encourage you to search scientific literature on these topics, and not simply fall down the abyss of youtube debates and people who don't dare publish their views in scientific places (you'll note of those fabled 700 papers none of them are about any of what he talks about in the videos).
There is a whole caste of ex-scientists that find a place selling this junk to people yearning for spiritual answers, this particular anon clinged to James Tour, but there are others. Google scholar and arxiv are your friends.

>>19137375
different person
how do I cope with low IQ, /sci/ anon? inb4 god

>>19137375
I honestly do appreciate your willingness to have a discussion at all, although you were less than charitable (and somewhat gross) at points. Because I actually am interested in this topic from a neutral and unbiased perspective, I probably will watch those videos, although I have a lot of other things on my plate. The key thing is that, for me, I have no reason to be attached to one explanation or another - if the origin of the 4 essential elements of life, one day, are shown to have likely been formed and joined together through a naturalistic process, it does not shake my faith at all. I simply go where the science goes, and accept that which has a compelling rational case behind it. As of right now, we can surely both agree that there is currently no naturalistic theory explaining the origin of life, and that the scientific community is currently hard at work trying to rectify that "issue". Dr. Tour offers a compelling deep-dive on the state of scientific research in this area, while not making any claims that he is not willing to defend.
I found this video funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwHhRQEDi4
He is willing to pay for that "Professor Dave" figure's flight to come and debate him in person, do an online debate, or even fly to Professor Dave's location. So I look forward to seeing the product of their interaction, if Professor Dave ever accepts - and hopefully through it, we can both come to a greater understanding of the state of OOL research.
>Which is part of why you don't accept this as a naturalistic view for the origin of life
I am not contesting that this is a "naturalistic [hypothesis] for the origin of life". I am simply restating my claim that it is intellectually dishonest to say that it is likely that life arose from naturalistic processes, and all proponents of that idea should add the qualification that it is a hypothesis which is, at this time, unsubstantiated. Once again, I will repeat, there is no naturalistic theory which explains abiogenesis. I hope before we are done that you will at least agree on that universally accepted scientific fact!
>Which is why I said it's convenient you said that, because I happened to have those 3 papers ready to give you.
Yes, it is very convenient that you were able to copy and paste from the video description of Professor Dave's rebuttal video that you hadn't even fully watched yet, because it gave you the air of being pre-prepared for the discussion (and thus being well-read in the field of OOL studies).

Regardless, God bless! I do hope we get that debate soon, because surely we will both be keeping a close eye on Dr. Tour, to see if he is intellectually demolished, and exposed as a sophist (as you quite uncharitably claimed, despite only watching 20 minutes of him speak)!

>>19135756
t. Someone who has never read the textbook

>>19137405
I'm not sure what you call low IQ but unless you have specific symptoms of mental retardation I wouldn't worry. If you do have those, in most of the first world you can still lead a very meaningful life.
IQ tests were originally devised as a tool to find children with learning difficulties. Only later on it became this sort of "general intelligence measurement" that people try to use for eugenic purposes. Most of what people claim about IQ is possibly just a bunch of cognitive biases in societies that reward tasks similar to those that IQ tests reward. The observed correlations between IQ and certain variables can be explained like this.

An interesting experiment that might calm your mind is that one by Terman, on a long term follow up of children trying to track if their IQ predicts success in the future. After observing them for almost 100 years now the conclusion is that high IQ is far from correlated with career success or any of that, with many of the 140+ IQ children ending up living completely mediocre lives. You're far better off being born stupid but very rich.

So don't worry too much about your IQ unless it's like below 70 and quit consuming alt-right infographs as your primary source of information.

>>19131230
Evolution disproves all of this.

>>19137530
>evolution disproves Genesis

>>19137535
t. arrogant ape

>234 replies
>bait thread
>babies first philosophy

>>19137446
>debate
Debates are the circus of the intellectual world. They're fun to watch, but useless other than as a manipulative tactic. It's entirely expected Tour is calling people to debates rather than trying to publish papers countering their points. It's all he has.
I hope we get those papers where he refutes the entire scientific literature that basically shows he is talking out of his ass. I also hope you overcome your fear of being wrong one day and end up watching those videos I linked, those papers too, and apologize for misquoting Heisenberg.

>>19137552
>Debates are the circus of the intellectual world
Debates are great for learning things, based upon the points of the participants.
>useless other than as a manipulative tactic
They are not useless (for example, public education is one use), but you are free to say factually incorrect statements.
>It's entirely expected Tour is calling people to debates rather than trying to publish papers countering their points.
Both Dave and Dr. Tour are using peer-reviewed papers to make their cases. By this same line of argumentation, I can ridicule your chosen dropout Youtuber because he posted a response video instead of publishing papers countering Dr. Tour's points.
>It's all he has.
He is willing to defend his position using the proper and accepted method of scientific discourse, yes.
>I hope we get those papers where he refutes the entire scientific literature that basically shows he is talking out of his ass
Interesting that you accept one form of scientific Youtube content (from a dropout), but reject another, insisting that one should release papers, but not the other. Surely that has nothing to do with your prior ideological position of desperately defending the ridiculous primordial soup hypothesis you were taught as a young adult.
>also hope you overcome your fear of being wrong one day and end up watching those videos I linked
I have no fear of being wrong. Abiogenesis is not my identity, and my faith will not be shaken at all. I am only sharing the scientific consensus view that there is no naturalistic theory explaining abiogenesis, which you continue to dodge, and not address (because you know it is true, but don't want to concede)?
>apologize for misquoting Heisenberg.
I have provided evidence that it is possible Heisenberg authored that quote, but just for good measure, I also posted another Heisenberg quote that shows his brilliance combined with his unabashed Christianity.

Happy to engage in this "circus" with you, though - hopefully, some observers learned that it is an uncontested fact that there is no naturalistic theory which explains abiogenesis, despite the seething of atheists.

>>19137619
It is a circus because a clown like you may convince a few retards that you actually made a single argument in this entire thread. But I trust that people have a better discernment than that. By the way, at the very least you could post 3 papers or so defending Tour's points of view. The 3 I posted above that show selection predates life were taken from the video of the "dropout" (if you watch the video you'll note he interviews about half a dozen PhDs, including a similarly prized chemist in the same area as Tours, that claims he is completely wrong about one of his claims regarding reactions in water).
The only real luck people like you have is that this world is not very incumbent on your honesty or intellectual honesty for that matter. If there actually was some kind of god or hell that punished manipulative lying behavior I think you'd have acted much different across this whole thread. But it doesn't surprise me to see yet another "fake it till you make it" trad larper in this board.

>>19137677
My argument, which I have clearly articulated and defended thus far, is that there is no naturalistic theory explaining the origin of life. This is uncontroversial, and anybody can look it up to see for themselves. The fact that you are still acting as if I have not made that clear throughout the thread is quite telling - everybody can see that you literally have not responded to that central claim of the thesis defended by Dr. Tour. Why, I wonder? Is it like a stroke victim who is unable to perceive things to the left of them, or are you explicitly avoiding agreeing with me on this obvious truth because I am a "clown" and a "retard"? I hypothesize that it is the typical pride characteristic to all unrepentant sinners - you misinterpreted Dr. Tour's thesis, but are too haughty to say "hey, I now realize that you were not claiming there are no hypotheses for abiogenesis, but only that there are no theories. My bad.".

I do find it funny that it is the typical Godless atheist, with no grounds for objective morality, who claims that the behaviour of another should be punished for what he perceives to be a morally wrong action. I tip my fedora to you, sir.

>>19137747
>"hey, I now realize that you were not claiming there are no hypotheses for abiogenesis, but only that there are no theories. My bad.".
Why would I ever say that when both of you readily yell "we have no clue". "We have no clue" is completely different from "we have many hypotheses, just no theories", and even then you're standing on weak legs.
I have specifically answered that the current standard theory of evolution is the answer to your question, but you just plug your ears and pretend to not be listening.
I'm now finishing the second video, and it presents so many papers I didn't even know that I realize my position is more well defended than I thought. There have been more lab realizations to the spontaneous synthesis of lips, proteins, nucleic basis and carbohydrates than I even knew, many of which in the last 10 years. There are literal dozens of pathways to explain how these things can have form and plenty of laboratory realizations of these. I'm not even addressing you specifically by now, but Tours himself (I'll only call him Dr. if you call me Dr. too because I also have a PhD and this is not common practice outside of retarded religious zealotry like this), since he had to respond to this and failed, on one of his videos that is quoted within the one I posted.
You are deliberately plugging your ears to the fact that science has already answered your questions, and it's not even a mathematical model, but actual laboratory measurements. You should at least remain consistent with your idol and claim that those lab experiments are not done in prebiotic conditions or something of the sort (even thought that's also arguably a lie), but to claim there are no results or ways of explaining things is a deliberate lie.

To be clear. The naturalistic theory explaining the origin of life is a combination of thermodynamics, dynamic chemistry, and a series of biochemical predictions and confirmed experiments showing all the necessary components for life on earth can arise spontaneously from natural processes. People are free to deny this, just as they are free to deny water is wet, but we would correctly call them liars at the very least, as we also should with you.

>>19137818
>The naturalistic theory explaining the origin of life is a combination of thermodynamics, dynamic chemistry, and a series of biochemical predictions and confirmed experiments showing all the necessary components for life on earth can arise spontaneously from natural processes. People are free to deny this, just as they are free to deny water is wet, but we would correctly call them liars at the very least, as we also should with you.
This is simply false. Referencing various papers does not make a theory - that is a hypothesis. This particular hypothesis appeals to your personal sensibilities, and does not explain several critical facts which are literally required for any theory of abiogenesis (by definition), the most fundamental of which are the origins of the very constituent elements of life themselves - you can't even show me how to create a single carbohydrate in abiotic conditions, even theoretically, and you expect me to believe you have a coherent theory of abiogenesis? You can't explain how RNA formed, and yet you claim you have a theory? Absolutely ridiculous, you should be ashamed of yourself for presenting such obvious nonsense.

>>19137818
>The naturalistic theory explaining the origin of life is a combination of thermodynamics, dynamic chemistry, and a series of biochemical predictions and confirmed experiments
LOL

>>19137852
So they just assume it must have happened without any evidence whatsoever?

>>19137844
>You can't explain how RNA formed, and yet you claim you have a theory?
I did and linked to the appropriate experimental realizations. Calm yourself down and re-read the posts you skimmed over. This is not a point that is up to debate, and I'm pretty sure even Tours concedes this by now. He shifted his goalposts already, you just haven't even kept up with your pet idol.
To boot:
>Lab synthesis of carbohydrates from scratch
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.0c00751
"Ok so humans know how to make carbohydrates from scrat B-BUT MUH PREBIOTIC CONDITIONS"
If you're curious the state of the art scientific answer would be "this is not a problem as long as prebiotic enzymes evolved before prebiotic carbohydrates", which is entire plausible in the scheme of everything I've been presenting so far (nucleotides and proteins evolving in prebiotic selection cycles).
But let me guess, you totally didn't lie just now, right.
>>19137852
Oh my god so epic, I can use wikipedia too! I can even use the scrollbar on the same article you used and just look a little further below XDDD ecks dee! Look, wikipedia just proved there is a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis. GG well played, gamers!

>>19137551
>>replies
>>contributes nothing
It'd be theology and it is okay to just say you don't understand. You're anonymous here, no one will make fun of you. God bless.

The greatest trick of the religious is applying intense scrutiny on the current state of scientific knowledge, but refusing to apply the same methods to their own beliefs.

>>19137886
Are you seriously implying that the lab synthesis of polysaccharides is proof that we know how to make carbohydrates from scratch, when the material that was used to make the polysaccharide was a monosaccharide?

>"Wow! How did you make a carbohydrate from scratch?"
>"It was easy, I just had to use some carbohydrates!"

Honestly, this is getting quite droll. You are clearly ideologically motivated to push an agenda, and using intellectually dishonest tactics - or else, your PhD is in something irrelevant like kinesiology, and you actually don't realize how off-base your claim was.

What a stupid thread. No wonder God lets us suffer.

>>19137326
Growing up was a reference to you, not the baby. Awful things just happen. They are the result of the original sin. While Christ came to heal the world, much like Adam and Eve rejected God's grace when they disobeyed him, so too with Christ's crucifixion was he again denied in the world, only this time the Lord forgave the original sin, and while sadly the evils of the world continue, and will continue to permeate, the Lord has given people the ability to seek salvation through him and have eternal life. But the bible doesn't promise that belief in him on this world all of a sudden makes things rainbows and easy. I'm sorry anon, but sometimes evil is just going to happen to people that absolutely do not deserve it. What about the baby victim (or ANY victim?) You take them in, help them to the best of your ability, make them understand that the evil that was done was not their fault, or any form of "punishment", but that of a sinful individual. Or in the event of natural evils, like when a tornado tears through a school and kills kids; it's monstrous, but that too has nothing to do with God. It is a moment however for people to come together and help those victims heal. The blame of the rapist and their evil lies within solely the rapist. The blame for a tornado tearing through a school or town lies solely with that tornado/hurricane/earthquake. The destruction, whether through conscious choice (in the case of the person) or through natural means (weather events, famines, etc.) are just simply that. You should be absolutely appalled that evil things like baby rape or whatever else that would be considered universally monstrous can happen, but from the beginning God informed the best of us, Adam and Eve, who were made as perfect man and woman, yet even they came to sin against him. They were with God directly, and God loved them so much that he gave them the option then, because of free will, to eat of the tree he forbade, and they did, despite God's warning. This is the punishment we all pay. Sorry if you've had something awful in your life, most do. But it is not then to wallow in despair, but to overcome, come together, and became saints of this Earth in hopes that, in doing so, others will want to emulate. We know, due to prophecy or Revelations, that there will come a time that evil will grow and fester the Earth. Whether we're in that time now or some time in the future, it's why we're told to not speculate, but leave that concern with God. Do not suffer existentialism, but even if you remain skeptical that the Lord is merciful in spite of evil that exists, I just pray that you come to understand the wisdom of it all someday and always reach out a helping hand to those who have been affected by evil. After all, part of being human is a strong sense of justice, and I believe that's part of why true crime is such a huge genre of modern media, because we all yearn for that sense of justice.

>>19137984
God doesn't want us to suffer. We suffer because we consistently reject him and his graces. I don't think you think it's actually that stupid, otherwise you wouldn't have commented. If you have genuine arguments or concern, you should present them. Otherwise, God bless. I wish you the best. Stay safe.

>>19137959
>if it works for me pa, it works for me

>>19137959
Science is a wonderful tool for measuring the natural world, but it's insufficient when discussing theology, but that doesn't mean that no reason can be applied to theology, there are plenty of logical arguments made. But the same issues are always going to crop up: when discussing anything metaphysical, you're eventually going to hit that road bump, whether you are a believe or not, where something cannot be explained. A mystery. In science it would just be a limitation in current understanding and progress gets made towards developing better understanding or tools. But you can never approach that with theology because, no matter the faith, it's going to hinge on something entirely internal: faith. You cannot measure one's faith. That's not the say that reason isn't wonderful, for even Thomas doubted and Jesus loved him all the same, God wanted us to be able to reason and understand the world around us, but again, we cannot apply the scientific method to matters of theology, at least not in quite the same way. But there are other great logical approaches. There is historical theology, liturgical, ecclesiastical, legal, philosophical, etc. etc.. Theology breaks down into various studies and has their own experts that debate them.

>>19136096
>>19136131
?^

>>19130439
epicurus thought the earth was flat

>>19138099
>trust the science!!!!

>>19138093
Without diminishing the divinity of the eternal Logos, He added to it all that is involved in being human, uniting the two natures (divine and human) in what is called the hypostatic union.
"He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human."
To put it another way, the eternal Logos took on a human nature through becoming incarnate through the blessed virgin Mary (that is, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the blessed virgin conceived, and held God the Son in her womb after He had clothed His divine nature in a human body). Thus it can be said that He dwelled in this body as if it was a tent - He "tabernacled among us" (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-14.htm)), just as God dwelled within the tabernacle.

>>19136867
God knew you would say that

>>19137906
>"It's okay to just say you don't understand"
>"With my limited knowledge, I conclude the universe HAD to be created by an omnipotent being!"
The cognitive dissonance