My wife of 18 years and I had a religious discussion today about Adam and Eve. She’s an educated theistic Jew, who sees the Adam and Eve story as analogous (most Jews don’t see the Bible as literal) to whatever really happened, but that only gives her a certain amount of leeway.
My point to her was that in the Bible, Eve was set up. God, being omniscient, knew for a fact that Eve would eat the fruit when He put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. He knew the future back then, and therefore he was 100% certain that Eve and Adam would eat the fruit and thereby cause the “fall of Man” (christian only) or at least be kicked out of Eden. In this way, Eve did not have free will at all, and she did not make a choice to eat the fruit. She did what God knew she would do, with 100% certainty. The God comes out and acts all surprised and pissed off when Adam and Eve are shy and knowledgeable (an omniscient god would never be surprised, but that’s another story), as if he didn’t know it was going to happen.
My wife tried to counter with the whole free will argument, but it doesn’t work. Omniscience trumps free will. If God can do something KNOWING what the result will be for certain, there is no free will, and Adam and Eve did what God knew would happen like pawns, with no options at all. The result — Adam and Eve committed no sin — they were force-fed the fruit by a god who did what was needed to make them eat it. Man didn’t fall; he was pushed.
Jews can accept this, because their god can be a really mean god sometimes. The Christian God, not at all like the Jewish God despite what the Christians would say, is supposedly all-loving. This argument stings them a bit.
[...] Adam and Eve Were Set-UP « No God Blog [...]
I said to JaCCoff,
“Call me the “accuser”, (you know who he is don’t you?) and answer my questions. A true christian has a responsibility to do so. Your messiah did it for forty days in the wilderness. Just not up to the task?”
JCC doesn’t come to debate, he come’s to harrass. He cannot defend his faith, yet continues to bother the rest of the contributers with shit about how science supports his pathetic beliefs.
Ask him a question, he doesn’t answer, he picks a quote out of context and makes some irrelevent remark.
I guess he’s our antagonist Satan of Genesis. He’s going to need to brush up his bullshit skills before he’ll drag a third of the stars of heaven in his tail.
Won’t you? (smile)
NeoWolfe
More on dark matter jcc. Scientists have not yet pinned down its preicse nature, but suffice it to say, they will NEVER say “goddidit” or in the case of “dark matter”, “satandidit”:
“The name “dark energy” is just a placeholder for the force — whatever it is — that is causing the Universe to expand. But astronomers are perhaps getting closer to understanding this force with new observations of several Cepheid variable stars by the Hubble Space Telescope, which has refined the measurement of the Universe’s present expansion rate to a precision where the error is smaller than five percent. The new value for the expansion rate, known as the Hubble constant, or H0 (after Edwin Hubble who first measured the expansion of the universe nearly a century ago), is 74.2 kilometers per second per megaparsec (error margin of ± 3.6). The results agree closely with an earlier measurement gleaned from Hubble of 72 ± 8 km/sec/megaparsec, but are now more than twice as precise. “
Yahweh:
Like neowolfe, it’s apparent that the concept of using blockquotes here eludes you. And it’s my guess that if I were to use the new “reply” function for each of your previous posts to me, then they would go unnoticed by you. So instead, I’m responding here to the few semi-intelligible remarks you’ve made.
Tell me again what “directed” the application of those neurons firing?—let me guess, it was other neurons firing, huh? So “you” are just a big automaton. But getting back to reason being the “product” of the firing of neurons; tell me again how the “reason center” of your brain knows that what “it” regards as reason, is in fact objectively true for everybody else’s reason center?
Tell that to Allan Sandage, Hugh Ross and Guillermo Gonzalez (just to name a few).
Then you embarrassingly stroke your desperate little ego with an attempt to show the world you’ve watched a few classic films.
But you’ve consistently failed to demonstrate what the source of the metaphysical concept called reason is. Sure, you say you’ve concluded certain things about what your senses can and have reported to your consciousness, but you haven’t come close to explaining how your consciousness knows for sure that the algorithms it’s using as “reason” are themselves reasonable.
Given that I’ve demonstrated that you reside in an abode composed of transparent (and very brittle) amorphous silica, you really should take more care when projecting such vapid “stones.”
Obviously, my expression of incredulity at your pedantic blathering of irrelevant “fundamental mechanics” to the discussion was a bit too nuanced for you.
Helllloooo! I’m not arguing with that. But that doesn’t stop you from further verbal self-indulgence with more egomaniacal and didactic exposition of your grasp of the scientific realm:
Psssst, hey buddy. Get a clue. Dark matter has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you’re clueless as to what the origins of the metaphysical concept called “reason” are. All you’ve done here is show the world how insecure you are by thinking that posting everything you know about science you got from Wikipedia somehow makes you the smartest person in the room.
Hey, JCC – STILL WAITING for evidence that a human being can live past 200…
(for which of course you’ll substitute some pithy remark that no one but yourself finds witty @ all, because there ain’t no evidence for that old white magic you call jay-sus)
What? Are you losing your religion again? I thought you thought science was the answer to every human problem… including premature death. Or could it be you’ve now lost the ability to Google for these things?
http://tinyurl.com/qpkwqf
http://tinyurl.com/cajqoj
O ye of little faith…
You mean like, “Sure, I’ll demonstrate it to you after you’ve accomplished the impossible by ‘easily demonstrate[ing] [reason] via inducti[ve]/deducti[ve] [reasoning]?’”
Oh, nonononono – that’s not proof, that’s possibility…not the same thing. I was looking for archeological proof – somewhere in the ME, around ‘biblical’ times.
Why bother? You’ll take the lazy way out & say ‘gawddidit!’.
Which of course, it didn’t, because there is none.
Krys:
So, are you acknowledging that it is possible?
…only time will tell…
Could that be because you’ve finally realized the fallacy of a circular definition?
Lazy? To fully scrutinize to the best of one’s ability all the possibilities of what the evidence is showing and then finally acknowledge what the best explanation of that evidence is, is “lazy?”
Yes, and you know that for a fact (but you just can’t seem to prove it).
Doesn’t matter what I acknowledge, still not proof.
& yet nothing in sight.
AKA religion.
You’ve got very little evidence. It’s all special pleading. You set out to prove there is a ‘gawd’, & you got what you wanted, but only because you presupposed it, & that’s what you wanted.
SIGH. Why, oh why can’t you understand, that that’s the Negative Proof fallacy? Yours is the extravagant claim, so back it up.
I’ve heard the ‘existence of an abstract concept defeats materialism’ before. It’s a stupid argument. Not even close to proving your superstition.
Oh yes it does, ‘cause apparently, you’re trying to “prove a negative.”
Hey, if you guys can use that strategy, why can’t I?
Hmmm. Reason = religion?
I got tons of evidence.
Nope. You’re the one who’s saddled himself with proving a negative.
No I didn’t. Initially, I set out to prove Creationism wrong, but based on the evidence concluded otherwise.
No. I got what I didn’t expect.
Riiiight… and that certainly can’t apply to you.
Because that is itself fallacious.
No, it’s the most reasonable claim.
I have. You just won’t accept it.
Then demonstrate its stupidity.
JCC you’ve gone off the deep end. Stop wasting our time.
Show Me Some Proof:
A classic example of one of the two possible responses atheists give when they’re no longer able to intellectually defend their position. Next, I anticipate being called an idiot in some manner…
Wait: WHAT?!?!? I’m asking you for proof, so I’m trying to prove a negative? Red herring.
Because you’re trying to prove ’something’.
Not even close.
Tons of evidence that proves there’s no organizing principle behind the universe, you mean.
YAWN. Nope, I’m not. Tu quoque time already?
Yeah, I’ve seen your thought processes in action. You swallow all the reichwing paranoia propaganda w/frightening zeal. So you’ll pardon me a guffaw or 2.
Oh, so you didn’t expect to find gawd.
What, is your middle name ‘Tu quoque’? ‘I know you are, but what am I’ is a middle-school retort. You’re wrong about me, but hey, I’m an atheist, so I’m always wrong in your book anyways.
??? You’ll have to outline how – right after you single-handedly disprove Russell’s teapot.
That magic put everything together? Oy vey.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/materialism.html
“Materialism (or physicalism) can signify either a broad metaphysical view, or, more narrowly, a type of theory of mind. Metaphysical materialism is a specific kind of naturalism which contends that everything that exists is either physical or dependent upon the physical. Broadly understood, reductionist materialism maintains that everything is strictly physical; more narrowly, it maintains that the mind (at least) is purely physical. Nonreductive materialism also allows the existence of nonphysical properties that inhere in, or emerge from, a physical substrate. Consequently, it is sometimes called emergent materialism or property dualism. In the broad sense, nonreductive materialism holds that everything is physical or at least dependent upon the physical; and in the narrower sense it holds that the mind can have both physical and nonphysical aspects even though it must be instantiated in a physical system like the brain.”
Uh, yeah. By asking:
you’ve clearly started with the assumption that that’s impossible and that I can’t possibly find any such thing, ergo, my absence of evidence will prove your evidence of absence.
No. See below.
And you Darwinists aren’t trying to prove the ‘something’ of PE by praying the fossil record will someday finally produce that “golden egg?”
Only to an ostrich with it’s head in the sand…
Yeah, and you’re just a an unassuming, good-natured, middle-of-the-road, completely open-minded kinda fella who has no political predilections one way or the other… uh huh.
Not by science, nope.
As promised:
http://tinyurl.com/aj2dlj
And I just love the irony of this one given by your very own buds at infidels.org:
http://tinyurl.com/36elm
No, our omnipotent and omniscient God did.
Did you not read the last sentence of your supposed demonstration? :
…your “emergent materialism”—or “nonreductive materialism”—or whatever you want to call it, clearly acknowledges mind/brain dualism!!! Krys, you’re presenting yourself as being a terribly conflicted sot. Please indulge me and explain exactly what you do believe?
Aye caramba:
Wow, that’s the most convoluted nonsense I’ve ever heard. Prove me wrong, or give up.
Another red herring: obviously you’re twisting in the wind. I’ve said this before: evolution doesn’t hinge on PE (& besides, I think you don’t have an adequate grasp on it anyway).
Dude, we’ve gone over your ‘evidence’. In about every case you’ve presented, it’s fallen inadequately short on inspection. You refuse to admit any fault @ all. Instead, you constantly try to turn things around to suit yourself (your reply to this will no doubt be: “Oh YEAH – like YOU never DO that in [insert stupid analogy here]).
Sticks & stones, etc.
Oh, good old JCC, always pretending there are no nuances when best it suits him. No, you’ve not invalidated the teapot: you still require evidence to prove something exists. If you claim unicorns exist, you have to prove it. Likewise your invisible sky daddy. Arguments from silence DO have impact, in the proper context. So, nice try, no cigar.
AKA magic.
Did I ever say either way? No I didn’t. Besides, you flatter yourself in thinking you know me, when you don’t. Not @ all.
We can go on @ length w/this for hours. The fact is, I have actually seriously explored many of your claims over the years, as objectively as I possibly can. Much as I wish you were right, I’ve yet to see it.
Sorry.
Made perfect sense to me.
Prove you wrong that humans can live past 200, or wrong that you were asking me to disprove your assumption of a negative?
No. I was quite serious in my first response—only time will tell if remains that corroborate the Biblical claim exist. I threw in the shot at you Darwinists ‘cause I just couldn’t resist.
If it isn’t such a huge CYA, then why did Gould have to come up with it in the first place?
I think I do (remember, I have a piece of paper from an accredited university with my name on it that says I do).
In your opinion. Besides, if my evidence is so “inadequately short” then how do you explain the existence of others (who’re far smarter than me) who also accept it?
No. I’ve been on both sides of the debate and am not too proud to say that I was wrong.
I’m a bit confused. Are you’re saying it is impossible to prove a negative?
No argument here—and as for the existence of God, well, far smarter men than me accept the plethora of evidence that you stubbornly refuse to.
Are you serious? Do you really wish there is a God?
The former. The latter is just foolishness.
You realize that biblical claims are a rather large joke @ this juncture, right? I mean in the real world, not IMO.
Because like you they refuse to see the inherent flaws in all of it. We’ve gone around on this. DNA has so many problems w/it, there’s no way it was designed, ditto w/universal laws, human body, ecosystems, etc. etc. et al.
I’m talking about here, on this blog. Whenever I (or anyone else) points out a problem w/your logic and/or data, you immediately turn it into a personal attack.
Re-read, put in context.
See above. Argument from authority anyways.
I’ve said as much before – here I thought you kept better dossiers on us all. Of course I do. I’ll repeat this again, since it didn’t take the 1st time – my atheism is an intellectual choice, not an emotional choice. I’ve explained this as well – I’m a grown man, NOT some petulant fucking child who is rolling around on the floor hitting it w/my fists & feet, yelling NOIWONTDOIT.
Atheism is the only logical choice.
Oh yeah:
Prove that it’s happened.
What about, “only time will tell,” don’t you understand?
jCC SAYS,”Dark matter has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you’re clueless as to what the origins of the metaphysical concept called “reason” are.
JCC, YOU ARE THE CLUELESS LOUT.
You still fail to comprehend that I’m not engaging in a vacuous conversation with about “Meta-physics”. You can delve in that philosopjy of “beyond-physics”, the supernatural and BELIEFS all you want. I’ll continue to live and function in the real, “physical” world.
Go ponder the metaphysics of Adam’s and Eve’s non-existent navels;it will acquit as well as the rest of your “Meta-” ramblings about supernatural constructs.
“The word “metaphysics” is said to originate from the mere fact that the corresponding part of Aristotle’s work was positioned right after the part called “physics”. But it is not unlikely that the term won a ready acceptance as denoting this part of philosophy because it conveyed the purpose of metaphysics, which is to reach beyond nature (physis) as we perceive it, and to discover the “true nature” of things, their ultimate essence and the reason for being.”
Jcc: Continue practicing your brand of voodoo metaphysics, and when it leads you to the one and only correct answer to the question, “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, THEN you will be able to CONVERT me to your brand of xtian metaphysical voodoo.
Until then…keep your voodoo, angels, pins, metaphysics in their one and only proper realm—the confines of your deluded mind.
Krys:
Oh boy… whatever…
Yep, all that information just fell right into place the first time… and then there’s your “junk DNA”—which, as I suspected, isn’t turning out to be “junk” at all: http://tinyurl.com/ohkz2v
Huh?
Hmmm, still clueless about the concept of “design tradeoffs,” huh?
I go on a “personal attack?”—defending myself is now a “personal attack?”
Why?
Are you implying that my Christian faith is an emotional choice?
…for someone whose decision-making structure apparently descends from his worldview first rather than an objective survey of scientific possibilities.
Uh…I never used the phrase, nor is that what I intended. I was referring to our last discussion on DNA.
Quantum physics doesn’t match up w/the 4 macro force
No, there’s all kinds of design tradeoffs. It’s called evolution.
Don’t be disingenuous. There were LOADS of threads where I simply pointed out the holes in your logic, analogies, etc. You immediately attacked me personally.
Because life would be way easier. No being a part of a hated minority, there’d be justice meted out, an afterlife, you know, all the benefits.
I said as much the last time, did I not?
See, there you go again. Sitting in judgment & shitting on my head.
Did it ever occur to you that some people simply aren’t religious? That simple?
As was I. Please refresh my memory; if not junk, what else could you have meant by “DNA has so many problems w/it?”
Hmmm, but it doesn’t make the universe inherently unstable or completely unpredictable or incomprehensible either.
Explain to me again how an undirected process can consciously make use of such trade-offs?—let me guess: by “trial & error?” Yeah, like that’s undirected; or better yet, like any species could actually survive such catastrophic “transitional” episodes that are so heavily weighted towards “error.”
I’m not.
Point ‘em out. I’ve never launched an unprovoked personal “attack” on you or anybody else.
Easier or effortless?
…or a minority that hates…
Yeah, like that never happens here.
So you do pine for an afterlife. Congratulations! I knew deep down you were human after all.
Not directly. I just wanted to see it in writing—and to add another data point to my hypothesis that you allow your worldview to keep you blinded to the realities of certain things you despise.
No judgement; an observation—hence my use of the word apparently.
Uh, yeah. How many years have I been making that claim here?—and surely you’re not implying that about yourself? Even Show Me Some Proof had to concede the inescapable conclusion: http://tinyurl.com/r43gnv
JCC you have to realize that any here referring to religion is referring to traditional SUPERSTITIOUS religions.
Substitute that word whenever you see religion from now on.
I still believe that, by definition, atheism could be considered a religion, but what atheism really means is that we do not subscribe to superstitious groups that attempt to direct our actions. As you can see on this blog, atheists/agnostics exist in varying degrees and we disagree with each other and a multitude of things. That’s the beauty of it: dissent is welcomed.
jcc:
I thot you said you were a geologist. Now you’re claiming to have a degree in biology?
What degree? From what “accredited university”?
I did.
No. About a third of the required course work for a geology degree deals directly with the sub-discipline of paleontology, which in turn, assumes that Darwinian evolution is factual.