Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Thuzbekistan]

Since when was revenge a sin?
Like, according to the Old Testament, God has repeatedly destroyed cities as revenge for them not conforming to his standards of morality. He sent plagues to Egypt as revenge for enslaving the Jews. He exiled humanity from Eden as revenge for them gaining knowledge - not even doing anything with it, literally just knowing things. I mean, I see what you're getting at here, but God has a track record of acting like an angry teenager who throws nuke-level temper tantrums whenever things don't go his way. Unless, of course, you want to go back to the argument that God doesn't have to follow his own rules.

1. Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t vengeance. So was Canaan. Even you’d cringe on their utter moral trash heap. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed as per their moral degradation, and would have been spared had there been ten righteous people in them. A good comparison of these cities in fiction is the utter edgefest that is Commoragh.

As for Canaan, complete expulsion would be the proper word, as reading Joshua on the context of ANE military narrative tells you that is all hyperbole. You can’t exactly intermarry or make treaties with someone you just annihilated (the Israelites are prohibited later on in Joshua), and Jabin of Hazor shouldn’t even exist if it was merely a vengeful ethnic cleaning.

2. “Vengeance is the Lord’s.” The Jews were crying out for deliverance, and they had it.

3. Punishment and revenge are two different things.

4. “Temper tantrums” is in zero ways appropriate in this context. Also, things are going only when He allows it. So, not really “whenever things don’t go His way”.

1. Why do you say "even you?" Is this poster a bad person? That's just rude. Secondly, we've been over this- no amount if moral degradation justifies genocide. Thats just some amoral bs and everytime you say it, I think less of you.
2. God is above the cries of human vengeance, considering he is perfect.
3. Genocide is not a punishment.
4. Then gods a dick considering he made these people as immoral as they are and kills them for the fuck of it.

[The New California Republic]

Evolution. We evolved from primates according to copious volumes of evidence, we didn't just pop into existence because of a deity.

I never denied evolution though.

Theistic evolution exists, alongside the Gap Theory and the Time Relative Theory.

So where did Adam and Eve come from?

Theistic evolution is a rush by Christianity to nullify a threat by evolution to its very existence, an ex post facto band-aid, nothing more. Gap Theory doesn't explain evolution, and what the fuck is Time Relative Theory? I checked, it throws up zero search results.

They lived for almost one millennia back then so not really.

And that is a crock of shit too. Telomere shortening makes that an impossibility.

And a long life wouldn't stop the inbred as fuck offspring from being produced with severe disabilities and congenital defects. There simply would not have been enough genetic diversity. The human genome would have become a homozygous mess and then it is sayonara human race...

And you didn't respond to any of this. Why?

[Cameroi]

if we're so much grater then almost anything else we can see, touch and measure,
then it seems, inductively, only logical, that there be things, every bit as much, greater then ourselves.

it does not follow from this however, that they owe anything, to what anyone tells you, to imagine about them.
(even if they carved it in stone, tens of thousands of years ago, with blunt stone chisels)

it also does not follow, that they would have to be infallible, have created us, or have the slightest desire to be feared.
(but they could exist in the billions, it just, doesn't have to have anything to do with us, whether or not they do)

[Celritannia]

They lived for almost one millennia back then so not really.

No, they did not.
Adam and Eve contradicts the number of great civilisations already at their height.
Ancient China, India, and the Americas for example.

[Estanglia]

Good thing that Adam and Eve didn't exist, and thus renders the entire argument moot.

Jesus also said that marriage may only be between a man and a wiman, regardless.

What makes you so sure?

The fact that it's pretty much impossible for all of us to come from two people. Incest would be the norm, assuming we don't die from a genetic disorder.

I don't believe in a god or higher power because there little to zero scientific evidence to prove one exists. As someone who has Autism, Dyslexia and Anxiety (I am also going to the doctor tomorrow to see if I have depression), I don't know what kind of god would allow me to exist.

There is no evidence if you always discount the evidence.

Wait, so there's actually evidence? Wow! Maybe you'll be the first one to provide actual evidence!

Sarcasm aside, provide this evidence.

If Adam and Eve was real as some bible truthers say we would've bred ourselves into extinction within 4 generations.

They lived for almost one millennia back then so not really.

That is the most bullshit claim I've ever heard.

[Tarsonis]

They lived for almost one millennia back then so not really.

No, they did not.
Adam and Eve contradicts the number of great civilisations already at their height.
Ancient China, India, and the Americas for example.

Not really. Assuming even a YEC stance, that puts Adam and Eve around 5000-4500 BC. All three of those civilizations would be in their infancy at that time.

[Thuzbekistan]

No, they did not.
Adam and Eve contradicts the number of great civilisations already at their height.
Ancient China, India, and the Americas for example.

Not really. Assuming even a YEC stance, that puts Adam and Eve around 5000-4500 BC. All three of those civilizations would be in their infancy at that time.

That would still mean that within 2500 years, humanity had spread from eden to most places on earth, even to north America. I dont see it happening with 2 people. As previously pointed out, they'd be dead or severely genetically diseased

[The New California Republic]

No, they did not.
Adam and Eve contradicts the number of great civilisations already at their height.
Ancient China, India, and the Americas for example.

Not really. Assuming even a YEC stance, that puts Adam and Eve around 5000-4500 BC. All three of those civilizations would be in their infancy at that time.

Those dates still don't make sense, as to have civilizations in different parts of the globe requires large numbers of people dispersed across the globe; which doesn't square with just two people existing in one place...

[Hanafuridake]

Not really. Assuming even a YEC stance, that puts Adam and Eve around 5000-4500 BC. All three of those civilizations would be in their infancy at that time.

Those dates still don't make sense, as to have civilizations in different parts of the globe requires large numbers of people dispersed across the globe; which doesn't square with just two people existing in one place...

It would be a major scientific discovery if we learned that, instead of those civilizations forming over time from older settlements of people, they instead all leaped into existence with no historical development.

[The New California Republic]

Those dates still don't make sense, as to have civilizations in different parts of the globe requires large numbers of people dispersed across the globe; which doesn't square with just two people existing in one place...

It would be a major scientific discovery if we learned that, instead of those civilizations forming over time from older settlements of people, they instead all leaped into existence with no historical development.

Yup. The idea of several separate ancient civilizations emerging completely ex nihilo with no tribal stage whatsoever is just fucking absurd.

[Tarsonis]

Not really. Assuming even a YEC stance, that puts Adam and Eve around 5000-4500 BC. All three of those civilizations would be in their infancy at that time.

That would still mean that within 2500 years, humanity had spread from eden to most places on earth, even to north America. I dont see it happening with 2 people. As previously pointed out, they'd be dead or severely genetically diseased

Oh I’m not saying it’s true, just pointing out where biblical dating puts them

[Arctrucia]

I never denied evolution though.

Theistic evolution exists, alongside the Gap Theory and the Time Relative Theory.

So where did Adam and Eve come from?

Theistic evolution is a rush by Christianity to nullify a threat by evolution to its very existence, an ex post facto band-aid, nothing more. Gap Theory doesn't explain evolution, and what the fuck is Time Relative Theory? I checked, it throws up zero search results.

And that is a crock of shit too. Telomere shortening makes that an impossibility.

And a long life wouldn't stop the inbred as fuck offspring from being produced with severe disabilities and congenital defects. There simply would not have been enough genetic diversity. The human genome would have become a homozygous mess and then it is sayonara human race...

And you didn't respond to any of this. Why?

Oh ho ho, wait up while I snicker and laugh.

Evolution is ultimately irrelevant to God’s existence. So what if we come from Austrolepauaiaja whatever? That still doesn’t explain how unlife spawns life.

It is a very common misunderstanding that Adam and Eve were the only people that time. In fact, as it is never specified how long they were in existence before Lucifer decided to tempt Eve with an apple, it may be plausible that there already a number other humans around for years. After all, Cain got his wife from the Land of Nob.

And considering that they were perfect before sinning, telomere shortening wouldn’t have applied to them; it is explicit that human mortality is a result of their sin. This is all assuming that defects even existed before Lucifer messed it all up.

By the way, the Time Relative Theory is, in essence, a theory that states that time flowed much faster in the onset of the universe (and saying that Adam and Eve were around in 5000 BC is heresy as adding up the years of the people in the genealogy later in Genesis does that, and ignores the fact that Hebrew genealogies skips over a lot of people and mentions only important people).

Jesus also said that marriage may only be between a man and a wiman, regardless.

What makes you so sure?

The fact that it's pretty much impossible for all of us to come from two people. Incest would be the norm, assuming we don't die from a genetic disorder.

There is no evidence if you always discount the evidence.

Wait, so there's actually evidence? Wow! Maybe you'll be the first one to provide actual evidence!

Sarcasm aside, provide this evidence.

They lived for almost one millennia back then so not really.

That is the most bullshit claim I've ever heard.

1. That is never explicitly stated. It is more likely that Adam and Eve were just the most important figures, but not the only ones. Maybe take a little more time reading.

2. There is a lot of evidence, if you are just open minded.

https://www.godandscience.org

https://religionnews.com/2017/05/11/fiv ... ly-exists/

But of course, if you would rather believe that chaos produces order, nothing produces everything, and other oxymorons, then that is your own path to take.

3. Which ignores the fact that human mortality is a result of man’s disobedience as stated in Genesis.

They lived for almost one millennia back then so not really.

No, they did not.
Adam and Eve contradicts the number of great civilisations already at their height.
Ancient China, India, and the Americas for example.

They don’t if you don’t simplistically add the years of the genealogy later on in Genesis as if it is complete, which is not the case with ANE genealogies. Only people of special importance are ever mentioned in genealogies in their context.

I never denied evolution though.

Theistic evolution exists, alongside the Gap Theory and the Time Relative Theory.

So where did Adam and Eve come from?

Theistic evolution is a rush by Christianity to nullify a threat by evolution to its very existence, an ex post facto band-aid, nothing more. Gap Theory doesn't explain evolution, and what the fuck is Time Relative Theory? I checked, it throws up zero search results.

And that is a crock of shit too. Telomere shortening makes that an impossibility.

And a long life wouldn't stop the inbred as fuck offspring from being produced with severe disabilities and congenital defects. There simply would not have been enough genetic diversity. The human genome would have become a homozygous mess and then it is sayonara human race...

And you didn't respond to any of this. Why?

1.

[Arctrucia]

It would be a major scientific discovery if we learned that, instead of those civilizations forming over time from older settlements of people, they instead all leaped into existence with no historical development.

Yup. The idea of several separate ancient civilizations emerging completely ex nihilo with no tribal stage whatsoever is just fucking absurd.

No one ever said that.

You have a creative imagination.

[The Alma Mater]

In fact, as it is never specified how long they were in existence before Lucifer decided to tempt Eve with an apple

You know, the Bible neither states that was Lucifer, nor that it was an apple.
Why do you feel the need to make so many things up ?

[Estanglia]

The fact that it's pretty much impossible for all of us to come from two people. Incest would be the norm, assuming we don't die from a genetic disorder.



Wait, so there's actually evidence? Wow! Maybe you'll be the first one to provide actual evidence!

Sarcasm aside, provide this evidence.



That is the most bullshit claim I've ever heard.

1. That is never explicitly stated. It is more likely that Adam and Eve were just the most important figures, but not the only ones. Maybe take a little more time reading.

2. There is a lot of evidence, if you are just open minded.

https://www.godandscience.org

https://religionnews.com/2017/05/11/fiv ... ly-exists/

But of course, if you would rather believe that chaos produces order, nothing produces everything, and other oxymorons, then that is your own path to take.

3. Which ignores the fact that human mortality is a result of man’s disobedience as stated in Genesis.

1) Interesting, but there'd still have to be a lot of people to prevent all of that.

2) I haven't had the time to check out https://www.godandscience.org fully yet, but the other one's arguments are interesting. Whilst they all do make an assumption that it's God, the points themselves (i.e what makes them believe that it's God) are stronger than some other arguments I've seen.

I don't have a particular belief in how the universe started. I don't know, and I'm not comfortable with picking one until I'm certain it's correct.

3) I'm guessing I misinterpreted the post then because I thought it meant immediately after Adam, Eve and co. were kicked out that they were living for millennia.

[The New California Republic]

Evolution is ultimately irrelevant to God’s existence.

It certainly is relevant if there is a claim that God created mankind.

---

So what if we come from Austrolepauaiaja whatever? That still doesn’t explain how unlife spawns life.

Sure it does. Evolution explains most of it. As for the origin itself, the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment simulated early Earth's atmosphere with nothing more than water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane, and an electrical charge standing in for lightning, and produced complex organic compounds like amino acids. In other words, the building blocks of life; which just had to come together once in the right combinations over the course of eons of interactions between them to result in life.

And what the fuck is with that "Austrolepauaiaja" shit? Speaking gibberish is a method of arguing that should be left in Kindergarten.

---

And considering that they were perfect before sinning, telomere shortening wouldn’t have applied to them; it is explicit that human mortality is a result of their sin. This is all assuming that defects even existed before Lucifer messed it all up.

"Telomere shortening is caused by Satan". Fucking ridiculous.

And that argument is completely wrong, as people born after The Fall and after Adam died, such as Noah, were born into original sin, and yet lived to be 950; so the implication that "sin shortens telomeres" is just plain dumb. There is no evidence, no evidence whatsoever, that a lack of sin preserves telomere length.

---

By the way, the Time Relative Theory is, in essence, a theory that states that time flowed much faster in the onset of the universe.

Again, it's another ex post facto band-aid to patch a festering wound in Christian theology that has been exposed by science.

[Psukhe]

Evolution is ultimately irrelevant to God’s existence.

It certainly is relevant if there is a claim that God created mankind.

A reconcilable fact, seeing as a deity could have just caused everything to be as it is, i.e. "made" evolution a thing.

[The New California Republic]

It certainly is relevant if there is a claim that God created mankind.

A reconcilable fact, seeing as a deity could have just caused everything to be as it is, i.e. "made" evolution a thing.

Except it contradicts the origin of Man as described in the Bible.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

By the way, the Time Relative Theory is, in essence, a theory that states that time flowed much faster in the onset of the universe

What if increasing any part of the speed of light makes the stars explode and destroys the universe?

[Psukhe]

A reconcilable fact, seeing as a deity could have just caused everything to be as it is, i.e. "made" evolution a thing.

Except it contradicts the origin of Man as described in the Bible.

I'm not familiar with the Bible, rather with the Old Testament, but I see no reason for the more moderate and progressive Judeo-Christians of today adopting a compromising stance that sees these stories as myths and fables. Even outside the Judeo-Christian framework, deities and science are not incompatible at all.

[The New California Republic]

Except it contradicts the origin of Man as described in the Bible.

I'm not familiar with the Bible, rather with the Old Testament, but I see no reason for the more moderate and progressive Judeo-Christians of today adopting a compromising stance that sees these stories as myths and fables. Even outside the Judeo-Christian framework, deities and science are not incompatible at all.

If the Bible is fallible or even mere myth, then that calls into question its assertions that said deity exists.

[Aellex]

A reconcilable fact, seeing as a deity could have just caused everything to be as it is, i.e. "made" evolution a thing.

Except it contradicts the origin of Man as described in the Bible.

Only if you read the genesis literally and even so not really.
The contradiction is only there because you want it to be there.

[Psukhe]

I'm not familiar with the Bible, rather with the Old Testament, but I see no reason for the more moderate and progressive Judeo-Christians of today adopting a compromising stance that sees these stories as myths and fables. Even outside the Judeo-Christian framework, deities and science are not incompatible at all.

If the Bible is fallible or even mere myth, then that calls into question its assertions that said deity exists.

And yet the concept of a deity predates Christianity.

[The New California Republic]

If the Bible is fallible or even mere myth, then that calls into question its assertions that said deity exists.

And yet the concept of a deity predates Christianity.

Of course it does, but I wasn't talking about just Christianity in particular, I was referring to Judaeo-Christianity in general.

[The New California Republic]

Except it contradicts the origin of Man as described in the Bible.

Only if you read the genesis literally and even so not really.
The contradiction is only there because you want it to be there.

So there is no contradiction between Man being created de novo and Man originating from primates via evolution? If the escape from that is a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, then what is said metaphorical interpretation?