Jesus and his sacrifice is Satan’s test of man’s morality.

She worships men who twist and misrepresent the Bible, as she has often demonstrated.

quote:

---

There is the belief that a single cell and ultimately sentient moral life evolved without any intelligent or moral input from the endless chance combinations of mindless particles. That is without answering the question of why those particles existed in the first place.

---

I don't know anyone who believes that. Most sensible and informed people believe that evolution is responsible. And if you don't know that by no, what have you been doing here all these years ?

quote:

---

I have no problem believing in evolution. I do have a problem believing in an evolutionary process that is a result of endless mindless processes from mindless particles.

---

Your problem is that many atheists accept evolution which is a process which provides guidance and goes well beyond the capabilities of random combinations. And, f course, evolution is a mindless process which naturally follows from the existence of imperfect self-replicators.

quote:

---

What then do atheists believe about abiogenesis or the ultimate basis for the evolutionary process?

---

As I pointed out above evolution is an inevitable consequence of the existence of imperfect self-replicators. And only creationists believe that conscious moral beings were produced by anything that could be called abiogenesis. How abiogenesis really occurred on Earth is up for grabs (if it happened on Earth, which is only the more likely possibility) but there does not seem to be any reason why self-replicating chemicals could not form and acquire elaborations through evolutionary processes. Where you put abiogenesis in that process depends on where you draw the line between life and non-life, but that is a fine point of no real importance here.

quote:

---

OK so evolution occurs without any intervention. That still does not answer the question of why it exists or whether it is the result of a pre-existing intelligence or not.

---

Since evolution is the inevitable consequence of a population of imperfect replicators the only thing to be explained is the existence of said replicators. Once the population exists it will evolve and no pre-existing intelligence is required.And of course if we wish to compare degrees of faith it cannot be done by a hostile and dishonest look at one point of view. Both points must be fairly examined. You propose a pre-existing intelligence, unlike anything known to exist and with even less explanation of why it should exist. Unless your only criteria is what you personally find easy to believe - which certainly cannot be applied to other people - then surely your position requires more faith to believe.

quote:

---

I have been simply attempting to defend my position. The only defence that I have seen from atheists is that is what they believe. We both have looked at the evidence and have come to very different conclusions.

---

No. I responded because you dishonestly attacked the atheist position. Indeed your only defence is that you find your views more plausible - a purely personal opinion. Attacking opposing views while not putting your own up for examination is no honest defence.

quote:

---

However, I understand that the process that evolutionary changes have been caused by random mutations. If I have this right we would be unable to perceive whether any specific mutation was externally interfered with or not, which is not to say that it is required.

---

Evolution requires that the replication process does not always make exact copies, and that those differences are at least sometimes inheritable. This is what I mean by "imperfect replicators". Given this, evolution will occur in the absence of any external interference.

quote:

---

From a naturalist POV we would also require some process to bring about the existence of the replicators, and a process for that process and so on.

---

Naturalism does not require an infinite regress. Science, in the other hand, is (rightly) reluctant to conclude that we have reached the end of explanation and will continue to look until it is certain we can go no further.

quote:

---

I have put up my own position numerous times and if I have to keep repeating it in every thread I'll run out of time to participate. A while back I started a thread on my beliefs which sounds egotistical but I did it in an attempt to not have to keep repeating things over and over for which I didn't have the time.

---

The pint is, of course, that while you claimed to be "only defending" your own views you were in fact only attacking an opposing view. And doing so dishonestly.

quote:

---

But yes, I do contend that my views are more plausible, and yes, I agree that is simply my belief, and that others, like yourself, disagree and have different beliefs.

---

Unfortunately your contentions frequently lack intellectual honesty and sometimes even lack plain honesty.

I think that you are overlooking a number of points.First, foreknowledge implies predestination. It is not possible to know the future unless the future is fixed.Second, when it is considered that God supposedly created everything and intervenes within time It necessarily follows that God has a major hand in dictating the future. And if you also grant that God has perfect knowledge of the consequences of His actions, and can use that knowledge in deciding His actions then it follows that God has dictated everything that occurs. But if you do not grant it aren't you the one limiting God?Third, what about God changing his mind? Saying that he will do something and then, in the end, not doing it? If God knew that he would not do it, wouldn't He be lying when he said that He would ? Consider the implications of that.

quote:

---

Why not? I don't see how this follows at all. We are talking only about "prescience", knowing something ahead of time.

---

We're not talking about guessing or probabilistic predictions here. We're talking about actual certain and complete knowledge of the future. Which is logically impossible unless the future is entirely fixed. How could it be otherwise?

quote:

---

So is it inevitable? Is it "fixed" as you say? I would say that reality is inevitable. What happens at this moment in time happens irrevocably. The same happens at a set point in the future. The question, then...in regards to God...is whether by foreknowing everything that must happen He removes our free will.

---

No, that isn't the question. The question is what is Gods role in shaping that fixed future. To what degree can God anticipate the consequences of His actions? The Christian God does not simply observe a universe not of his making. According to Christianity of any stripe God has had an important role in the shaping of our universe and in human history.

quote:

---

We are talking about only knowledge here, specifically omniscience and prescience, not about determinism. KNOWLEDGE of what will happen does not DETERMINE or FIX what will happen. Knowledge alone is simply passive, imagining God as an observer. (Yes, God is much more than just an observer, but these other aspects of God are not addressed by the terms "omniscience" or "prescience".)

---

Perhaps you are are misunderstanding the point. I am not saying that foreknowledge causes the future to be fixed. I am saying that a fixed future is a requirement for perfect foreknowledge.God cannot with absolute certainty know what I will have for lunch today unless it is absolutely certain that I will eat that lunch today. And it must be absolutely certain now, before I have made my decision.

No, the complications come from other matters (such as Gods actions within time).From our perspective the future is not fixed. From your Gods perspective it must be, or He cannot have certain knowledge of the future.

Which brings us to the second - and far more important - point from my post.

quote:

---

So long as free moral agents other than God exist in the universe, I don't see how it follows that "God has dictated everything that occurs". Perhaps "scripted", but not "dictated".

---

What's the difference? It isn't that the script allows ad-libs or that it is knowingly followed. If you want to say that the outcome is controlled by hidden manipulation rather than direc command I'd agree, but that still seems to be better described as being dictated rather than scripted.

quote:

---

To me, the word "dictated" implies determinism and causation

---

If everything that occurs necessarily follows from Gods actions - actions taken knowing those consequences, and with a huge range of alternatives available - then that would seem to fit well enough. And that is the situation we are discussing.

quote:

---

But the biblical God is not the author of evil; it's not correct to say that He "dictated" evil. He forsaw evil and directed His "script" around it and in spite of it, but He did not "dictate" the evil.

---

But the evil is - in your words - "scripted" too, and the obviously the creator of the script is the author.

quote:

---

This may be the issue that you are interested in discussing at the moment.

---

It is the issue that we are discussing - or were since you seem to have decided to run away.Obviously I have posed a problem that you cannot answer to your satisfaction.It is interesting that Christian apologists so often need to paint their God as an uninvolved observer of the universe instead of a creator who actively intervenes in His creation. If that's the sort of God you believe in why not be a Deist ?