Questions For Ordinaryclay

[mymistake]

 

"OrdinaryClay actually thinks he is special."

 

 

 

I think OrdinaryClay is the full special.

 

"You should never go full special."

[sdelsolray]

 

 

"OrdinaryClay actually thinks he is special."

 

 

 

I think OrdinaryClay is the full special.

 

"You should never go full special."

 

Belief in being special is the gateway drug to hubris, holier-than-thou behavior, xenophobia and immorality, among other things.

[centauri]

 

Your logic posits that everything needs a creator except the creator.

That's a form of special pleading.

It is not special pleading anymore than defining axioms is special pleading. God is by definition the first cause. If He is not than He is not God. The claim is that all natural matter, space and time need a creator. Not that anything you can think of in your mind needs a creator.

 

An axiom is defined as self evident, requiring no proof, a universally accepted principle or rule.

Your logic is not accepted as self evident, nor is it universally accepted.

It's also special pleading because you assume that "God" must be your version of this supernatural being that you assume must have caused all things while being itself exempt from needing a first cause.

[Astreja]

I hear how people on here put great thought into their leaving Christianity, but I sincerly doubt many took the time to understand Natural Theology.

 

Why should we fucking bother with natural theology, OC?  It's no more than a game of philosophical Twister.  It's just a thought experiment dressed up in a frock.  It adds nothing of value to our lives, and can safely be taken to the tip with the rest of the garbage.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Your logic posits that everything needs a creator except the creator.

That's a form of special pleading.

It is not special pleading anymore than defining axioms is special pleading. God is by definition the first cause. If He is not than He is not God. The claim is that all natural matter, space and time need a creator. Not that anything you can think of in your mind needs a creator.

 

An axiom is defined as self evident, requiring no proof, a universally accepted principle or rule.

Your logic is not accepted as self evident, nor is it universally accepted.

It's also special pleading because you assume that "God" must be your version of this supernatural being that you assume must have caused all things while being itself exempt from needing a first cause.

 

Your rules do not apply to OC.  He is special.

[sdelsolray]

 

I hear how people on here put great thought into their leaving Christianity, but I sincerly doubt many took the time to understand Natural Theology.

 

Why should we fucking bother with natural theology, OC?  It's no more than a game of philosophical Twister.  It's just a thought experiment dressed up in a frock.  It adds nothing of value to our lives, and can safely be taken to the tip with the rest of the garbage.

 

Natural Theology is natural until it invokes the supernatural, which it does early and quite often.

[centauri]

 

 

An axiom is defined as self evident, requiring no proof, a universally accepted principle or rule.

Your logic is not accepted as self evident, nor is it universally accepted.

It's also special pleading because you assume that "God" must be your version of this supernatural being that you assume must have caused all things while being itself exempt from needing a first cause.

 

Your rules do not apply to OC.  He is special.

 

How true.

So many apologists and preachers make up their own rules and then claim God approves of them.

[boftx]

 

[... deletia ...]

 

I seem to recall you strongly implied in a different topic that the serpent really did tempt Eve, thereby causing her to introduce sin into the world. That implies that you believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, which in turn weakens your statement that you accept a common ancestry for man and presumably the other primates.

 

[... deteletia ...]

Regarding your last point about the serpent in the Garden I don't recall what you are implying I said. You would have to find the post. I do accept common ancestry.

 

 

Here is the comment from a different thread:

 

 

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Do you mean to imply that the serpent had Free Will? You must be. Otherwise the serpent, that particular one, was created by "God" to tempt Eve. If the act of tempting Eve (or actually telling her to disobey "God" as you put) is "evil", then if must follow that "God" created that evil for the serpent to perform.

I have said repeatedly that God created the world we find ourselves in. The serpent chose to disobey God. He made that choice of his own free will. God did not author this evil. satan did. satan is a liar and evil by choice. The serpent is satan - the adversary.

 

 

I may have mis-stated your position about the serpent talking to Eve, but my point that your belief that the serpent (or Satan) tempted her carries the implication that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

 

Based on what you have said in this topic I think you are saying that "God" intervened at some point in the evolutionary development of primates in order to bring about those first two humans, right? So basically you accept evolution for all life on Earth except for humanity, which is the product of "God's" intervention. And that intervention is just another way of saying "God" created Man since you have also said in this topic that time alone does not account for the "gap" as you put it in evolution from whatever common ancestor you allow for.

 

From there you go on to accept the temptation and sin of Eve, and Adam, and all the rest that you would probably say is part of "God's" plan for the redemption and salvation of Man.

.

Is this a fair summary of your position on that particular point?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Your logic posits that everything needs a creator except the creator.

That's a form of special pleading.

It is not special pleading anymore than defining axioms is special pleading. God is by definition the first cause. If He is not than He is not God. The claim is that all natural matter, space and time need a creator. Not that anything you can think of in your mind needs a creator.

 

An axiom is defined as self evident, requiring no proof, a universally accepted principle or rule.

Your logic is not accepted as self evident, nor is it universally accepted.

It's also special pleading because you assume that "God" must be your version of this supernatural being that you assume must have caused all things while being itself exempt from needing a first cause.

 

First, I did not say God was an axiom. I used the concept analogically. God is not an axiom because He is a conscious entity. Second, if you think axioms are always self evident you've never studied any reasoning system that has used them. Sure, I suppose some may be intuitively obvious, but not all. I think you've read a definition with no intuitive understanding of the purpose of an axiom.

 

It really doesn't matter though because the point is that God is definitionally without cause. As I said, the notion of cause is a scientific one, not a meta-physical one. The demand for causation is from science. Science does not hold in the case of the supernatural - again by definition.

 

The idea of a Creator does not necessity the Christian God. The metaphysical need for a creator is filled by any conscious causeless omniscient being. Natural Theology builds a stepwise case for the Christian God.  For goodness sake take the time to do some semblance of study on the subject. Really, again, the people here claim to have given their decision thought and it is clear most have not.

 

[Astreja]

The idea of a Creator does not necessity the Christian God. The metaphysical need for a creator is filled by any conscious causeless omniscient being.

 

But I, OC, have no such "metaphysical need."  I have no need of any "Creator" hypothesis as it would not have any particular effect, positive or negative, on the life that I lead right now

 

It might well be that in the grand scheme of things, a "conscious causeless omniscient being" simply does not exist.  There certainly isn't any credible empirical evidence for one at present, just the incessant farting of philosophers and theologians.  No matter how much they whine that a creator "must" exist, their arguments simply aren't enough to even interest Me, let alone convince Me.  I want nothing less than one-on-one direct physical contact with this alleged divine being, with no human intermediaries whatsoever.  This is not negotiable.

 

And I direct your attention to the name of this site.  It is called Ex-Christian dot net, not "Ain't_no_gods_anywhere_in_the_multiverse_neenerneenerneener dot net."  It was the gross immorality and sheer stupidity of ChristInsanity itself, not "metaphysics" or an implacable hatred of natural theology, that caused Me to become an ex-Christian.  Please try to keep up, 'Clay.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

[... deletia ...]

 

I seem to recall you strongly implied in a different topic that the serpent really did tempt Eve, thereby causing her to introduce sin into the world. That implies that you believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, which in turn weakens your statement that you accept a common ancestry for man and presumably the other primates.

 

[... deteletia ...]

Regarding your last point about the serpent in the Garden I don't recall what you are implying I said. You would have to find the post. I do accept common ancestry.

 

 

Here is the comment from a different thread:

 

 

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Do you mean to imply that the serpent had Free Will? You must be. Otherwise the serpent, that particular one, was created by "God" to tempt Eve. If the act of tempting Eve (or actually telling her to disobey "God" as you put) is "evil", then if must follow that "God" created that evil for the serpent to perform.

I have said repeatedly that God created the world we find ourselves in. The serpent chose to disobey God. He made that choice of his own free will. God did not author this evil. satan did. satan is a liar and evil by choice. The serpent is satan - the adversary.

 

 

I may have mis-stated your position about the serpent talking to Eve, but my point that your belief that the serpent (or Satan) tempted her carries the implication that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

 

Based on what you have said in this topic I think you are saying that "God" intervened at some point in the evolutionary development of primates in order to bring about those first two humans, right? So basically you accept evolution for all life on Earth except for humanity, which is the product of "God's" intervention. And that intervention is just another way of saying "God" created Man since you have also said in this topic that time alone does not account for the "gap" as you put it in evolution from whatever common ancestor you allow for.

 

From there you go on to accept the temptation and sin of Eve, and Adam, and all the rest that you would probably say is part of "God's" plan for the redemption and salvation of Man.

.

Is this a fair summary of your position on that particular point?

 

First let me explain my belief when it comes to evolution and Adam and Eve. I believe Homo Sapiens evolved as the fossil record demonstrates. I believe God intervened at special points during the entire history of life starting at the origin of life and at other times allowing evolution to drive a clear direction and pinnacling with Homo Sapiens. How many times He intervened I have no idea. I believe the creation story describing Adam and Eve describes an event in which God created man in His image meaning He miraculously imbued a naked ape on planet earth with spirit. This is what sets us apart for all other life on this planet and what makes us special. I don't know why He did this.

 

I believe this scenario fits best with all the evidence: scientific, special revelation and supernatural. If you look at the history of life on this planet it is very interesting that we are the first species with the capability to develop an industrial society. Well, low and behold there have been enormous life cycles before us allowing just such a development. For example, we could not have developed industry with out millions of years of Carboniferous epochs. There are many "coincidences" such as this if you really look. We are the only known species that understands the spiritual world. This is astounding to me from a scientific perspective. Why on earth were there not species on this planet before us that evolved industrial societies. If life is so darn common in the universe then where in the **** are they. See the Fermi Paradox. We truly are special in astounding ways.

 

So with regard to the serpent, I believe there really was a supernatural event in which satan tempted and deceived man. Whether there was a physical talking middle eastern snake who was the vehicle I don't know and don't really care. I do believe the Biblical narrative regarding Adam and Eve as part of the redemptive plan.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I want nothing less than one-on-one direct physical contact with this alleged divine being, with no human intermediaries whatsoever.  This is not negotiable.

 

Why do you even bother telling me this? Telling me does nothing.

 

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(Php 2:9-11)

 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

I want nothing less than one-on-one direct physical contact with this alleged divine being, with no human intermediaries whatsoever.  This is not negotiable.

 

Why do you even bother telling me this? Telling me does nothing.

 

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(Php 2:9-11)

 

 

 

Why bother posting this scripture? Showing scripture to people who reject the Bible does nothing, except for annoy some and allow some others to have a good laugh. 

[Astreja]

Why do you even bother telling me this? Telling me does nothing.

 

I'm telling you because I want to tell you, OC.  The Bible is worthless to Me.  So is your testimony.  So is the testimony of literally every Christian who has ever walked the earth.  As far as I'm concerned, none of it is any more than wishful thinking and imagination run amok.  If your god lacks the power or the will to manifest physically in My presence, then I'm proceeding on the assumption that it doesn't exist.

 

And your posting of that nauseating "every knee shall bow" verse just reinforces My resolve to see your faith run over by a manure wagon.  

[Astreja]

 If life is so darn common in the universe then where in the **** are they.

Make you a deal, OC:  You run out and fetch Me an interstellar spacecraft with faster-than-light drive, and we'll pop over to My ancestral planet of Himat... In the M42 nebula (left side of Orion's belt, and down a bit).  Pack a lunch; it's 1400 light years away.

 

On a more serious note, I believe that the universe is positively teeming with life in virtually every solar system -- But that we may never get to see it simply because of the enormous distances from one star to another.  Even Proxima Centauri is so far from us that with currently-proposed technologies it would take a staggering 19,000 years to get there (and even longer if we can't use the gravitational slingshot method).  If we ever develop nuclear pulse propulsion, we might be able to cut that down to 85 years, but don't hold your breath.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 If life is so darn common in the universe then where in the **** are they.

Make you a deal, OC:  You run out and fetch Me an interstellar spacecraft with faster-than-light drive, and we'll pop over to My ancestral planet of Himat... In the M42 nebula (left side of Orion's belt, and down a bit).  Pack a lunch; it's 1400 light years away.

 

On a more serious note, I believe that the universe is positively teeming with life in virtually every solar system -- But that we may never get to see it simply because of the enormous distances from one star to another.  Even Proxima Centauri is so far from us that with currently-proposed technologies it would take a staggering 19,000 years to get there (and even longer if we can't use the gravitational slingshot method).  If we ever develop nuclear pulse propulsion, we might be able to cut that down to 85 years, but don't hold your breath.

 

So you believe the universe is teaming with completely isolated life. Possible, but not plausible.

[boftx]

 

So you believe the universe is teaming with completely isolated life. Possible, but not plausible.

 

 

 

It seems to me that the idea of the Universe teeming with life is far more plausible than that of believe in Jesus as Son of "God" and Savior or burn in hell for eternity.,

[Astreja]

So you believe the universe is teaming with completely isolated life. Possible, but not plausible.

 

Oh, I think it's eminently plausible.  All the stars appear to be made up of essentially the same materials, and through nuclear fusion produce the same basic elements such as oxygen, nitrogen and carbon.  This is the stuff that life is made of.

 

And there are, at last report, approximately 9 x 10²¹ stars in the observable universe.

 

So what, exactly, predisposes you to think it unlikely that many of the 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars out there have planets that support life...

 

...But that some uncaused sentient bloke decided to create life on *this* particular planet alone, and could only express itself with a silly-ass book containing:

• An undead rabbi;
• A magic boat full of animals that somehow survived a 40-day flood with rain coming down at the rate of 30 feet per hour (!);
• And, of course, a Talking Snake™?

What is this really about, OC?  Are you just unwilling to face the very real prospect that maybe, just maybe, you don't actually have eternal life and will simply fade into eternal insentience upon the demise of your physical body?

[Fernweh]

 

OC is either a highly developed troll, employing and embodying nearly every logical fallacy, or he is like the kid in 6th grade who still believes in Santa from suspending disbelief and he wants us to do the same.

Another possibility is that you don't understand what logical fallacies are.

 

 

I'm quite certain that I do understand logical fallacies. However, unlike you OC, I don't claim to have the answers to Life, the Universe, and Everything. You display an arrogant and condescending attitude towards atheists because you have deluded yourself into believing you have all the answers. You are the worst kind of apologist because when logic fails you simply conjure up ideas and shroud them in the nebulous idea of some deeper understanding that we are lacking and only you posess. Do you not understand that everyone on this forum, at one time or another, believed much the same as you? Do you not understand that many of the ideas you have espoused on this thread, in the name of your own version of theism, would have you labeled a heretic? What purpose does your endless and circular logic prove on this forum?

 

Are you here to try and win back converts?

Are you trying to hone your apologist skills?

Do you doubt your own faith?

[Fernweh]

 

 

 If life is so darn common in the universe then where in the **** are they.

Make you a deal, OC:  You run out and fetch Me an interstellar spacecraft with faster-than-light drive, and we'll pop over to My ancestral planet of Himat... In the M42 nebula (left side of Orion's belt, and down a bit).  Pack a lunch; it's 1400 light years away.

 

On a more serious note, I believe that the universe is positively teeming with life in virtually every solar system -- But that we may never get to see it simply because of the enormous distances from one star to another.  Even Proxima Centauri is so far from us that with currently-proposed technologies it would take a staggering 19,000 years to get there (and even longer if we can't use the gravitational slingshot method).  If we ever develop nuclear pulse propulsion, we might be able to cut that down to 85 years, but don't hold your breath.

 

So you believe the universe is teaming with completely isolated life. Possible, but not plausible.

 

 

Have you ever looked through a telescope and contemplated the speed of light?

[centauri]

 

First, I did not say God was an axiom. I used the concept analogically.

If God is not an axiom but only a speculation, you should stop claiming that your version of God exists and must have created all other things.

 

God is not an axiom because He is a conscious entity. Second, if you think axioms are always self evident you've never studied any reasoning system that has used them. Sure, I suppose some may be intuitively obvious, but not all. I think you've read a definition with no intuitive understanding of the purpose of an axiom.

An axiom, like God, will mean whatever you want it to mean.

The defintion of an axiom that I provided was taken from an actual dictionary, not from your version of reality.

AXIOM

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

 

Your "axiom" is merely a premise with no indication of being self evident or universally accepted.

The purpose of an axiom is to set forth a premise that can be accepted without further investigation.

You haven't done that, you've simply asserted and speculated.

 

The idea of a Creator does not necessity the Christian God. The metaphysical need for a creator is filled by any conscious causeless omniscient being. Natural Theology builds a stepwise case for the Christian God.  For goodness sake take the time to do some semblance of study on the subject. Really, again, the people here claim to have given their decision thought and it is clear most have not.

A metaphysical need is not an established fact.

The Christian God is, according to Christian doctrine, incomprehensible.

Christans cannot even agree on the construct of this "God".

It's an abstraction that you want to poof into existence through special pleading, claiming your version of God is exempt from serious scrutiny.

You keep trying to build a case for the Christian God according to your skewed understanding of logic and need for it to be real.

[centauri]

 

 

I want nothing less than one-on-one direct physical contact with this alleged divine being, with no human intermediaries whatsoever.  This is not negotiable.

Why do you even bother telling me this? Telling me does nothing.

 

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(Php 2:9-11)

 

This quotation does nothing to help your case.

This passage shows that the New Testament revised and edited the Hebrew scripture in an effort to create a new theology.

The Old Testament says nothing about Jesus being bowed to by anyone.

 

Isa 45:22-23

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

 

Yahweh is the sole savior, God, and authority, and there is nothing in this passage establishing Jesus as a replacement.

Php 2:9-11 is the work of a heretic.

 

Your theology is filled with claims that are not supported by the Old Testament.

Example:

"satan is a liar and evil by choice. The serpent is satan - the adversary."

 

There is nothing in Genesis that ever mentions Satan.

Satan is one of God's many sons who serves as man's accuser, his adversary.

Satan in the Old Testament never disobeys a command from God.

[creative]

 

 

 

[... deletia ...]

 

I seem to recall you strongly implied in a different topic that the serpent really did tempt Eve, thereby causing her to introduce sin into the world. That implies that you believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, which in turn weakens your statement that you accept a common ancestry for man and presumably the other primates.

 

[... deteletia ...]

Regarding your last point about the serpent in the Garden I don't recall what you are implying I said. You would have to find the post. I do accept common ancestry.

 

 

Here is the comment from a different thread:

 

 

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Do you mean to imply that the serpent had Free Will? You must be. Otherwise the serpent, that particular one, was created by "God" to tempt Eve. If the act of tempting Eve (or actually telling her to disobey "God" as you put) is "evil", then if must follow that "God" created that evil for the serpent to perform.

I have said repeatedly that God created the world we find ourselves in. The serpent chose to disobey God. He made that choice of his own free will. God did not author this evil. satan did. satan is a liar and evil by choice. The serpent is satan - the adversary.

 

 

I may have mis-stated your position about the serpent talking to Eve, but my point that your belief that the serpent (or Satan) tempted her carries the implication that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

 

Based on what you have said in this topic I think you are saying that "God" intervened at some point in the evolutionary development of primates in order to bring about those first two humans, right? So basically you accept evolution for all life on Earth except for humanity, which is the product of "God's" intervention. And that intervention is just another way of saying "God" created Man since you have also said in this topic that time alone does not account for the "gap" as you put it in evolution from whatever common ancestor you allow for.

 

From there you go on to accept the temptation and sin of Eve, and Adam, and all the rest that you would probably say is part of "God's" plan for the redemption and salvation of Man.

.

Is this a fair summary of your position on that particular point?

 

First let me explain my belief when it comes to evolution and Adam and Eve. I believe Homo Sapiens evolved as the fossil record demonstrates. I believe God intervened at special points during the entire history of life starting at the origin of life and at other times allowing evolution to drive a clear direction and pinnacling with Homo Sapiens. How many times He intervened I have no idea. I believe the creation story describing Adam and Eve describes an event in which God created man in His image meaning He miraculously imbued a naked ape on planet earth with spirit. This is what sets us apart for all other life on this planet and what makes us special. I don't know why He did this.

 

I believe this scenario fits best with all the evidence: scientific, special revelation and supernatural. If you look at the history of life on this planet it is very interesting that we are the first species with the capability to develop an industrial society. Well, low and behold there have been enormous life cycles before us allowing just such a development. For example, we could not have developed industry with out millions of years of Carboniferous epochs. There are many "coincidences" such as this if you really look. We are the only known species that understands the spiritual world. This is astounding to me from a scientific perspective. Why on earth were there not species on this planet before us that evolved industrial societies. If life is so darn common in the universe then where in the **** are they. See the Fermi Paradox. We truly are special in astounding ways.

 

So with regard to the serpent, I believe there really was a supernatural event in which satan tempted and deceived man. Whether there was a physical talking middle eastern snake who was the vehicle I don't know and don't really care. I do believe the Biblical narrative regarding Adam and Eve as part of the redemptive plan.

 

 

 

Heres some reading material for you. And FYI it predates your adam and eve story by a few thousand years.

 

Enki and the Making of Man

 

After six generations of Gods, in the Babylonian "Enuma Elish", in the seventh generation, (Akkadian "shapattu" or sabath), the younger Igigi Gods, the sons and daughters of Enlil and Ninlil, go on strike and refuse their duties of keeping the creation working. Abzu God of fresh water, co-creator of the cosmos, threatens to destroy the world with his waters, and the Gods gather in terror. Enki promises to help and puts Abzu to sleep, confining him in irrigation canals and places him in the Kur, beneath his city of Eridu. But then, with the universe still threatened, Tiamat, with the imprisonment of her husband and consort Abzu and at the prompting of her son and vizier Kingu, decides to take back the creation herself. The Gods gather again in terror and turn to Enki for help, but Enki who harnessed Abzu, Tiamat's consort, for irrigation refuses to get involved. The gods then seek help elsewhere, and the patriarchal Enlil, their father, God of Nippur, promises to solve the problem if they make him King of the Gods. In the Babylonian tale, Enlil's role is taken by Marduk, Enki's son, and in the Assyrian version it is Asshur. After dispatching Tiamat with the "arrows of his winds" down her throat (similar in some respects to how Elohim moves his breath (ruach) over the "face of the deep" or "Tehom", in Genesis 1:2) and reconstructing the heavens with the arch of her ribs (i.e. her "life"), Enlil places her tail in the sky as the Milky Way, and her crying eyes become the source of the Tigris and Euphrates. But there is still the problem of "who will keep the cosmos working". Enki, who might have otherwise come to their aid, is lying in a deep sleep and fails to hear their cries. His mother Nammu (creatrix also of Abzu and Tiamat) "brings the tears of the gods" before Enki and says

 

        Oh my son, arise from thy bed, from thy (slumber), work what is wise,

        Fashion servants for the Gods, may they produce their (bread?).

 

Enki then advises that they create a servant of the Gods, humankind, out of clay and blood.[11] Against Enki's wish the Gods decide to slay Kingu, and Enki finally consents to use Kingu's blood to make the first human, with whom Enki always later has a close relationship, the first of the seven sages, seven wise men or "Abgallu" (*Ab = water, *Gal = great, *Lu = Man), also known as Adapa. Enki assembles a team of divinities to help him, creating a host of "good and princely fashioners". He tells his mother

 

        Oh my mother, the creature whose name thou has uttered, it exists,

        Bind upon it the (will?) of the Gods;

        Mix the heart of clay that is over the Abyss,

        The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay

        Thou, do thou bring the limbs into existence;

        Ninmah (the Earth-mother goddess (Ninhursag, his wife and consort) will work above thee

        (Nintu?) (goddess of birth) will stand by thy fashioning;

        Oh my mother, decree thou its (the new born's) fate.

 

Adapa, the first man fashioned, later goes and acts as the advisor to the King of Eridu, when in the Sumerian Kinglist, the "Me" of "kingship descends on Eridu".

 

Samuel Noah Kramer, believes that behind this myth of Enki's confinement of Abzu lies an older one of the struggle between Enki and the Dragon Kur (the underworld)

[Guest r3alchild]

I feel like saying something, OrdinaryClay I think its time for you and put your balls out there and open a thread and post this evidence you keep talking about.

 

Enough said

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Your logic posits that everything needs a creator except the creator.

That's a form of special pleading.

It is not special pleading anymore than defining axioms is special pleading. God is by definition the first cause. If He is not than He is not God. The claim is that all natural matter, space and time need a creator. Not that anything you can think of in your mind needs a creator.

 

An axiom is defined as self evident, requiring no proof, a universally accepted principle or rule.

Your logic is not accepted as self evident, nor is it universally accepted.

It's also special pleading because you assume that "God" must be your version of this supernatural being that you assume must have caused all things while being itself exempt from needing a first cause.

 

First, I did not say God was an axiom. I used the concept analogically. God is not an axiom because He is a conscious entity. Second, if you think axioms are always self evident you've never studied any reasoning system that has used them. Sure, I suppose some may be intuitively obvious, but not all. I think you've read a definition with no intuitive understanding of the purpose of an axiom.

 

It really doesn't matter though because the point is that God is definitionally without cause. As I said, the notion of cause is a scientific one, not a meta-physical one. The demand for causation is from science. Science does not hold in the case of the supernatural - again by definition.

 

The idea of a Creator does not necessity the Christian God. The metaphysical need for a creator is filled by any conscious causeless omniscient being. Natural Theology builds a stepwise case for the Christian God.  For goodness sake take the time to do some semblance of study on the subject. Really, again, the people here claim to have given their decision thought and it is clear most have not.

 

 

 

http://www.theopedia.com/Natural_theology

 

Natural theology is the branch of philosophy and theology which attempts to either prove God's existence, define God's attributes, or derive correct doctrine based solely from human reason and/or observations of the natural world. This endevour is distinct from other theological methods in that it excludes the assistance of special revelation. Thomas Aquinas is the most famous classical proponent of natural theology.

 

Others throughout church history have rejected natural theology. Most in the Calvinist and Reformed tradition reject natural theology as having no foundational validity because the doctrine of Sola Scriptura leaves no source apart from Scripture from which to derive an accurate understanding of God, man, morality, justice, etc. Furthermore, it is rejected on the basis that mankind is so bound by sin that they can "know" nothing of God except that which is revealed to them. Neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth, one of the most influential Protestant theologians of the 20th century, sought to demonstrate that God can only be known through special revelation. Both he and Paul Tillich debated over this issue, Tillich arguing that revelation never runs counter to reason.

 

Supporters of natural theology, such as Paul Tillich and Aquinas (among others), have argued that the existence of God can be known through reason. Many "proofs" for the existence of God have been created, however, theologians have often rejected these proofs on the basis that they do not end up with the Christian God of the Bible.

 

 

Some interesting points about Natural Theology.

 

1.

It's validity seems to be a long-standing and ongoing matter of debate within Christianity. 

 

2.

Neither side can seem to make a definitive and conclusive case for or against it.  Instead there is much reliance upon argument, leaving a Christian free to adopt it or reject whatever arguments they happen to agree with, as they see fit. 

 

3.

Natural Theology, being a branch of Philosophy and Theology therefore suffers from the fatal flaw that's common to these two disciplines. 

 

 The Lack of Final Resolution.

A philosopher or theologian is quite free to adopt whatever position they like on any issues and are also just as free to reject contrary viewpoints.  Because there are often no final resolutions of certain issues, matters often devolve to which school of thought you adhere to - because in Philosophy and Theology there often is no one final and correct answer.  This explains why there are ongoing disputes and arguments within both fields that have been raging for centuries and will probably continue to do so, ad nauseaum. (As demonstrated by the Theopedia quote, above)

 

In this kind of subjective and highly-interpretive free-for-all, issues under debate often go round and round in circles, frequently devolving into a microscopic examination of what this or that means or should be taken to mean, endless disagreements over just what constitutes this or that, frequent referrals and citations which need not be accepted by either side and so on and so on.  (Sound familiar?)

 

In short, Natural Theology is a quicksand which OC would love us to enter and get sucked into.

But don't do it, my friends!  That's what he wants.  Word games.  Word salad.  Irresolvable issues.  The endless hashing and rehashing of subjective nonsense. On and on and on and...

 

Stand firm on the rock of empirical, objective evidence and don't let him tempt you off it.  Just remember that this reality is best described empirically - by science.  Just remember that philosophy doesn't make anything work at all, let alone work better.  Theology ditto.  They are both parasitic growths on the rump of human society - contributing nothing.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA