Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I asked you, in Religion I, to define sin. After much deflecting you finally pointed to some passage which said that sin was disobedience of the law. I assume that the law referenced is Old Testament law. Old Testament law commands us to

• kill witches
• kill homosexuals
• kill those who gather firewood on the sabbath
• kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night
• force rape victims to marry their rapist
• not eat schrimp
• not eat bacon
• etc

Can you point us to any evidence that not killing witches, homosexuals, Sunday firewood gatherers, or non-virgins causes "mental, psychological or physical illness"? Or that not forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist has the same effect?

I love shrimp and I love bacon. I don't recall having any "mental, psychological or physical illness" from eating it.

God's Mosaic Law applied to his Old Covenant people. But the Law of Christ applies to his Father's New Covenant people. The two laws were given under very different circumstances -- the former to govern a physical nation/kingdom as its law of the land, while the latter to a borderless, spiritual nation/kingdom as its rule of life wherever the subjects of the King live.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

There is order in our evolved universe. What makes you think there is not? Do you think the law of gravity has no order?

If that is true then why are the treatments administered by doctors for mental, psychological and physical sickness equally effective for believers and unbelievers alike? And for Christians and non-Christians alike?

Because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, perhaps?

Do you not believe in the germ theory of disease?

You certainly cannot be certain about the germ theory, can you?

You keep appealing to the law of gravity as what..."proof positive" that there is order to the universe? Couldn't the universe have evolved into some other form that didn't require gravity? Why does the universe have to be the way it is?

Besides...you're being duplicitous again. Don't you recall that when several months ago I presented the Anthropic Principle to you as an argument against the probability of atheistic naturalism, you essentially retorted that if all those 30+ or so cosmic variables were different or even didn't exist, life could have evolved anyway by adapting itself to a different a very different scheme of evolution. Back then you certainly denied the order behind the Anthropic Principle but now want to switch horses and tell us that there is order in the universe? And I have to interpret that by "order" you mean that there is an arrangement or sequence of objects or of events in time. In fact, there is a regular or harmonious arrangement in nature -- in the natural world. Isn't this what you mean by "order"? Well then...how is it that you denied such order with the Anthropic Principle Argument because that kind of order could have only been ordered by intellect, yet now wish to invoke it by appealing to the law of gravity!? And how ironic you appeal to this natural force when it comes up often in the Anthropic Principle argument itself.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

We really are becoming alienated and detached from our true selves if we believe that.
The biomechanics of man's physical body are apparent.
Let's not confuse that with our total essence.
No machine will ever be able to experience or express true love no matter how far we are able to develop artificial intelligence.

Or conscience for that matter.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Socrates said the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms. We need to define order, purpose, design, intentionality and accident. If we go to M-W we find little help since words tend to have more than one definition and we need to agree which definition we use. E.g., the order a series of events is not the same as an order given by a superior. The former is an arrangement, the latter is a command.

Note that random and accidental are not synonyms. Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years. That mean that in a sample U238 half the nuclei in the sample will decay in 4.5 billion years. That's not random. But exactly which nuclei will decay is random.

Take a sheet of paper and write down Maxwell's laws, Newton's laws, the Schrodinger equation, Einstein's equations and a few others. You basically have all of physics.

The formation of the universe is not random. The four primal forces guarantee that some of the energy of the big bang will become matter, that hydrogen atoms will form. From that hydrogen stars will form. Galaxies will form. Stars will supernova and heavier elements will form. Eventually some planets will form in the Goldilocks zone of their star, drawing in amino acids and other organic molecules from space, forming seas of primordial soup and abiogenesis will occur. Once that happens a new force, natural selection, enters the picture. Natural selection guarantees that more complex life forms will evolve. The process is not random. Which stars eventually host complex life forms is random but the process itself is not.

(emphasis mine)

And Solomon by the Holy Spirit said:

Prov 9:10
10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
NASB

There you go equivocating again! I thought we were talking order v. accident? Why do you bring "random" into this? For a thing to be an accident it must conform to certain, well-defined criteria. According our beloved M-W dictionary, it must be an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. And there must be a lack of intention or necessity. So...to argue against a purely accidental universe, you must prove that it was a a foreseen and planned event or circumstance, and that the universe's existence was necessary or intended. Now...isn't this a very odd juxtaposition of worldviews!? It seems to me that I should be arguing against the accidental nature of the universe, but yet you have painted yourself into a corner by insisting that the universe is " ordered" -- and THEREFORE its existence cannot possibly be an accident. YOU have pit "order" against "accident".

But again, permit me to remind you that when I presented the Anthropic Principle to you several months ago, you dismissed the argument from that principle on the grounds that it was not necessary for the universe to be what it is. It could have just as well have been something very different, and some forms of life would have likely evolved and adapted itself to it.

See what a web of deceit you have woven?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So are the acts of prayer and medical attention mutually exclusive to one another?

Are acts of prayer and medical attention equally effective?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

No machine will ever be able to experience or express true love no matter how far we are able to develop artificial intelligence.

how do you know that?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

God's Mosaic Law applied to his Old Covenant people. But the Law of Christ applies to his Father's New Covenant people. The two laws were given under very different circumstances -- the former to govern a physical nation/kingdom as its law of the land, while the latter to a borderless, spiritual nation/kingdom as its rule of life wherever the subjects of the King live.

So, if sin is disobedience of the law, the law in question is NT law?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, perhaps?

Even newborns?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You certainly cannot be certain about the germ theory, can you?

But using my earlier poker analogy it's a pretty good bet.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You keep appealing to the law of gravity as what..."proof positive" that there is order to the universe? Couldn't the universe have evolved into some other form that didn't require gravity?

If gravity did not exist it would have. But gravity does exist and it didn't.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I thought we were talking order v. accident? Why do you bring "random" into this?

I did not bring "random" into this. You did. At least the link you posted did. Read the first paragraph.

https://www.icr.org/article/155/

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

how do you know that?

No male millennial, yet, has claimed that his sexbot told him that it loved him.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I did not bring "random" into this. You did. At least the link you posted did. Read the first paragraph.

https://www.icr.org/article/155/

Well...I didn't. But I have repeatedly stated that in an atheistic materialistic worldview, there is no purpose, design, or intentionality to this universe. This universe is simply a huge cosmic accident. It must be because purpose, design and intentionality require intellect.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

If gravity did not exist it would have. But gravity does exist and it didn't.

Prove it. You're saying that gravity is necessary. How do you know this is the case with all the gazillions of universes that you and other scientists claim exist?

And if gravity is necessary, then why not all the other known variables in this universe that makes life possible, according to the Anthropic Principle?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

But using my earlier poker analogy it's a pretty good bet.

But you can't be certain about that either.