PHILOSOPHY IS KING

From a previous topic :Evolution only disproves God/Genesis IF the filter of your worldview is operating ?Evolution only disproves God IF the filter of your worldview INTERPRETS the evidence to say so ?Why ?Because the scientific evidence was supposedly gathered and produced under the claim of Divine neutrality. Rational enquiry and methodological naturalism contain clauses that specifically state no position concerning the Divine is taken.Why were these clauses created to begin with ?Answer : Because it was believed that God cannot be scientifically/empirically tested.Is the above answer true ?No !Why ?Because God, in Romans, says He can be deduced from what is seen/made.Romans 1:20"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"This entire verse of scripture exists in the context of the 18th verse which begins the wrath of God for all those who reject the gospel of the preceding verses.This wrath abides on persons who DENY God and are unthankful (verse 21). God requires two things : Acknowledgement as Creator/thankfulness.IF He is denied these two things then the punishment is the removal of the capacity to deduce Him in what is seen/made - "God sense removal".Violators have their "reciever" removed, they are no longer capable of seeing God's fingerprints in creation. They will conclude everything and anything BUT God.The most classic example of God sense removal is Francis Crick's space aliens ! Crick will conclude everything but God. Here we have a brilliant person suffering the wrath of God for refusing to acknowledge God as God and being thankful.CONCLUSIONS :The so called "Divine neutral" clauses in RE and MN are in fact God exclusionary. This "a priori" decision to exclude God is the trigger that unleashes the wrath of God : God sense/insight removalRomans reveals the truth about the true intent of those so called "Divine neutral" clauses.This is why evolution is heavily populated with atheists. The facade of the Divine neutral claims allow them to have their cake and eat it too.
When challenged as to how evolution disproves God they point to the clauses/claims, then when the hotseat disappears the emotive and reportive meaning of "evolution" remains : The God of Genesis was not involved.Random, chance, accident, fluke, mindless, purposeless are all words that have a convenient twin meaning : the God of Genesis was not involved.The Book of Esther (and others) proves God's m.o. is to control under the appearance of chance, fluke , and accident.EvC member Darwins Terrier has offered probably the best argument against ID in this forum that I have ever read. I responded to this agrument by congratulating him for his effort, even though I disagree, I recognized the appeal and strength of his arguments."Whats your point Willowtree ?"At the end of his post he says the following :Darwins Terrier QUOTE :"What is ruled out is a single highly intelligent designer, operating always at the height of his powers. " END QUOTE.http://EvC Forum: Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten Reasons -->EvC Forum: Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten ReasonsI offer this quote as evidence supporting Romans which declares by interpretation that the decision to not include God is indeed exclusionary and not "Divine neutrality".IF God IS (and He is ) then His subjective views become objective truth, and in the source of His word He reveals that He can be deduced in what is seen. Which means philosophy is king and not science and its atheistic worldview domination.Everyone has opinions about the Divine, as it is silly to say these opinions cease at the laboratory door. They continue under the camouflage of code because otherwise scientism/evolutionism is making unqualified conclusions about God.I would like to read replies from the following members (in no particular order) :NosyNed
Quetzal
Loudmouth
Mark Austin
Lam
Chipotera
Crashfrog
Darwins Terrier
MamuthusThis is not intended to put you on the spot. I just would like to hear from you all - and anyone else.Thank You,WillowtreeSource of Theology : Dr. Gene Scott.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-05-2004]

I deliberately placed it in FFA Admin., no default situation was in place.Thanks,Willowtree

LAM :What on Earth are YOU talking about ?The response that you replied to was my reply to a question from Admin.I don't think anyone in this forum who knows me would believe that I would not debate/argue for the accuracy of the Bible.I think you have made a mistake or maybe even me .....would someone jump in here and clear this up ?I have yet to respond to you Lam - but you better believe that I will.

Greetings Quetzal :This is a philosophical discussion - no question. I purposely titled the topic to reflect my desire/interest.Thank you for your speedy and honest reply that states no interest in a philosophical debate.We did have this dance in a distant debate, but it was in a scientific
arena because of my misplacement.I did read the link you provided and I am unable to give you a clear answer. But as it sits now I would not engage you in a scientific discussion as an opponent. I would only participate as a learner.Quetzal, the true and real intent of this topic of mine was to ilicit responses to the first two questions contained in the topic - would you care to take a hack at them ? If not, then you have already explained why.My best regards,Willowtree

RAND AL'THOR QUOTE :"You have posted this idea several times and each time you try to ignore Theistic Evolutionists. If a person still has their god sense then they should be able see his "fingerprints" in creation, right? Well, then how is it that we have people that still have their god sense accepting evolution?" END QUOTEYes, if they have God sense they see His "fingerprints". IF you accept evolution (whatever that means) and you still profess and credit God as Creator THEN you have fulfilled the requirement of Romans; which is acknowledgement of God/thankfulness. This compliance renders any given person ineligible for the punishment of God sense removal.God sense creationism only requires a deistic belief in God.God draws a line in Romans. He only requires a seat at the creation table. Deny Him this seat and He will permanently disable your ability to deduce His "eternal power and Godhead".God wants credit as the ultimate Creator and a word of thanks. Thats the line He has drawn....cross that line and you end up spending 30 years in gorilla cage mesmorized by apes AKA "worshipping the creation instead of the Creator" (Romans 1:23-25)Theistic evolutionists are engaged in a bad marriage, but they acknowledge God and thats all He requires.The laser beam of my wrath is aimed at the atheists of evolution who have devised a way to make conclusions about God while hiding behind a ridiculous disclaimer (RE and MN Divine neutral clauses).2000 years ago God through Paul anticipated His rejection by modern science. It is Dr. Scott and Professor Huston Smith who have rightly interpreted Romans and identified the rejection of God in: Law, Higher Education, Science/Scientism, and the Media to be the result of persons being stripped of their God sense FOR willfully "crossing the line".The success of the atheist agenda proves the interpretation of Romans to be absolutely correct.I never used or implied "conspiracy". But to give a plain answer :You either profess some type of belief in God or you don't. These are the two camps. The atheists are in loose conspiracy as are the deists/theists.Peoples of other faiths who acknowledge God are also ineligible for the punishment of God sense removal. This doesn't mean their faith is true in place of christianity it just means they are in compliance of God's two-fold demand. God will judge them as to their relationship with Him in the dimension that they encountered Him.

Born2Preach :This will be only the second time I have commented on somebody's name/handle.Because you chose such a name, would you mind providing me some links of posts that contain your preachments so I can read them and see if your sermons/theology matches the claim of your name ?

The entire tone of this post ASSUMES the Bible to be some scribblings of retarded cave men.You assume as fact the slander created by your worldview that the Bible is somehow illogical, inaccurate, and untrustworthy. The only persons who hold the Bible in such regards are persons who hate christianity, do not believe in the existence of miracles, also known as revisionists/frauds.The only thing circular is the foundational argument against the claims of the Bible (which are supernatural), and that circular argument is as follows :12:00 O'clock : Miracles cannot happen.12:15 : and anyone who says they do is not to be listened to.12:30 : because miracles cannot happen.12:45 : and anyone saying otherwise is a nut.12:00 O'clock : Because miracles cannot happen.Thats the entire dismissal of the claims of the Bible.The Bible CLAIMS to be the word of God, the claim is verified by the truth contained therein.I do not have to prove everything contained in scripture to be accurate. It is a given that the word of God is inerrant when possessed by God Himself. When that word is transferred to certain persons for recording it instantly becomes tainted with error.
Only fundementalists claim Biblical inerrancy - I am not a fundementalist. I have enough primary knowledge to know the sources themselves contain errors.Whats the point ?Anyone who immediately dismisses the Bible because of errors reveals their massive ignorance and/or dishonest intent. There are literally thousands of source manuscripts written and copied across Africa and Eurasia over hundreds and hundreds of years. These sources were written in Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Latin, etc,etc. Yet the common denominator amongst all these sources is a maximum 5% variation of content and this 5% variation never touches anything but very minor controversies.Would you dismiss evolution over previous errors and minor controversies ? Would you dismiss evolution because of peppered moths and Pilt Down Man ?You have 12 frickin manuscripts for the entire works of Herodotus yet everything he says is gospel truth. The Bible is accurate, its just that the powers that be do not like what it says.However, I have only cited 2 books/passages and this is a philosophical discussion.The best scholarship are all in agreement : The Book of Esther is an inspired work. It is the only book of the Bible where God's name does not appear - not even once. It is a perfect source to evidence that God is in control under the appearance of chance, fluke, accident.
That is my argument to counter the evolutionist claim that accident, fluke, and chance are indications that a Creator was not involved.My Romans argument points out WHY so many people interpret evolution to disprove the God of Genesis. If you willfully deny God simple credit and thanks He will react by eventually incapacitating your ability to see/know Him.The proof of this truth is in our society.Higher Education, Scientism, Law, and the Media have willingly embraced the atheist agenda, WHY ?Because God has reacted to their rejection of Him, they are suffering His wrath of God sense removal.You would probably explain the success of atheist agenda in euphemistic terms, but I am only pointing out what Romans says and it certainly makes perfect sense to all honest and intelligent observers.
The irony of the truth contained in Romans; that the refusal to simply acknowledge God as God and to be thankful (so little) gets violators a shove towards hating God. Thats what the previous cited segments of our society do : they hate God.You need to evidence how the Romans passages are wrong. There is no source manuscript that varies on these verses to any noticeable degree.Lam, you want to dismiss the Bible because of translation problems. Theologians exist to explain these things and there are plenty of brilliant ones in this world.There is a way to know for sure if you really want to. Persons only interested in destruction make the ever so common criticism/excuse of Biblical translation errors as a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-07-2004]

I will not dodge.I will answer.Thanks for your participation.

Loudmouth quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bzzzz. Wrong answer. Notice that God has "invisible attributes." My translation is that by "invisible", Paul is saying that man can never detect these attributes directly. Therefore, untestable by science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I said God can be deduced from what is seen/made. Then I supplied the source of this belief (Romans 1:20). Then Loudmouth replies with the above quote.But the verse plainly declares the obvious : God is invisible, so are His attributes, BUT the verse immediately goes on to declare that these invisible attributes are "clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made."Therefore, what is seen/made becomes a mirror to deduce His invisible attributes.Science deduces the existence of the unseen via the behavior of what they can see. Celestial bodies that cannot be seen are postulated to exist by the wobble of bodies that can be seen. What about quantum mechanics ?, gravity ?, etc.etc. The unseen is deduced by its impact and effects on the seen.The inability to make the same deductions concerning the effects and impact of the invisible God is a punishment from God FOR excluding Him from the creation table. Romans tells us, by interpretation, that the Divine neutral clauses in RE and MN are really exclusionary, and that this hostile act of rejection is what triggers God's response of removing the capacity to deduce Him in what is seen/made.Loudmouth quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This doesn't apply to cultures who never heard of Jesus. They never had a chance to deny God but yet come to different conclusions with respect to the supernatural. Secondly, this is a circular argument. Breaking it down, the argument is thus. "If you believe in God, then you will believe in God. If you incapable of believing in God, then you won't believe in God." Kind of stating the obvious, isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------I just want to state that my arguments about God sense removal do not require a belief in Jesus. They require a deistic belief in God to forestall any eligibility for the punishment.Your reference to circular argument doesn't make sense.The Romans argument says to deny credit to God as the Creator (and be genuinely thankful - you can't fool Him) has God reacting in anger with the aforementioned punishment. In essence, God is being "plagarized" via brilliant persons/any given person who assign what is seen to be the product of dunces like chance, randomness, fluke, accident, instead of God getting the credit. Why is randomness interpreted to say a Creator isn't/wasn't involved ?Because that is an "a priori" decision, a malicious thrashing/conclusion against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph.The point is that when Darwinism emerged and scientific enquiry crested; these pioneers wanted to eliminate the Church and their God; they didn't want to deal with a Creator - they want to be God; the ones everyone goes to for the answers - just like their predecessors the religionists.God said "fine". Reject Me and I will reject you.Loudmouth, you applauded me for accurately stating the Divine neutral clauses of RE and MN. Understand this : Romans says those clauses are really intended as exclusionary not neutrality, hence the punishment and the explanation of why so many atheists populate the halls of evolution.

You must first acknowledge that my previous reply DOES indeed satisfy against your assertions that the Bible is errant and therefore unreliable to base an argument upon.Next: You dismiss the Bible because there is supposedly no way to confirm/corroborate that it is the word of God.I only ask that it be ASSUMED the word of God; that this is the CLAIM of the Church. There is no harm to assume this. IF you seek to evade the content of this topic based upon this objection then allow me to remind you that this is not a Biblical inerrancy topic. But I have already addressed this inerrancy issue.The veracity of the claims and content of the Bible is confirmed by what it says being true.I have argued that the Book of Esther to be an excellent example/demonstration of the way God controls/operates. That m.o. is via the appearance of chance, fluke, and accident, which if true, evidences against any argument that might claim that chance, fluke, and accident to be indications that a Creator wasn't involved.LAM quote :----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the best example of why the bible today might not be accurate is the discovery and translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars have long suspected for centuries that the book of Esther was not part of the original OT, that it was added on later on by God knows who. The Dead Sea Scrolls justified this suspicion when scholars couldn't find the book of Esther anywhere, even though everything else was there. If part of the OT couldn't be trusted, what about the rest of the OT and perhaps the NT?
----------------------------------------------------------------------How/why do you associate the missing (Book of Esther) to be a basis to not trust what is not missing ?Because the DSS discoveries lack a Book of Esther; you conclude all the O.T. cannot be trusted ? Why ?If you cite the DSS as a basis to dismiss the Book of Esther THEN you are recognizing the source (DSS) and its remainder books to be assumed genuine.You cannot cite a source to dismiss a lacking component and then dismiss the entire source altogether.I could go to Genesis and demonstrate just as easily that God operates via the appearance of chance, fluke, accident.Your post then addresses translation problems, which I have already answered.LAM quote :----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited: Forgot to mention the fact that the NT was first put down on paper almost a generation after the death of Christ. The books were later named after the orginal apostles of Christ by the Vaticans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Negative : That is an unprovable opinion. This is a Jesus Seminar subjective invention created to slander the content of the N.T.
Evidence this outrageous claim or withdraw it.Lets not lose track of the issue at hand.Romans says God can be deduced from what is seen/made. Failure to make this deduction qualifies violator to be stripped of ability to recognize God in what is seen/made.Conclusion :Whoever interprets scientific evidence to say a Creator was not involved is suffering the wrath of God/sense removal as a penalty for excluding Him as a possibility.Scientism/atheism/evolution numerical population is explained by the Romans verses/declarations, which then becomes EVIDENCE that the source is what it claims to be : The eternal word of God.I have not forgot about your "Part 2" reply. I will answer it next/asap.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-08-2004]

Your reply will be the very next one - I promise/Asap.

I agree; insert the name of any deity and it "works equally well" to use your words.But we are debating philosophically. Romans 1:18 begins the wrath of God, which means the following verses unfold what the wrath is and what triggers it.God wants credit as the ultimate Creator/thanks - nothing else/period.The reportive and emotive defintion of "evolution" and its accompanying adjectives (random, chance, accident, fluke, mindlessness, purposeless ) all have the dual meaning that a Creator/God of Genesis WAS NOT involved. This is the message that the atheists of evolution are proclaiming. Evolution is INTERPRETED to mean/say that the God of Genesis is not the Creator.Romans, under the claim of being God's word, reveals WHY so many people fail to deduce God as the ultimate Creator : Because God has removed their "God sense" as a penalty (His wrath) FOR rejecting Him.IF you say "science takes no position concerning the Divine" then you are ignoring previous posts and clinging to that which has been refuted.Sidelined : This was a non-time consuming reply. Yours is forthcoming

B2P :Thank you for sharing this personal stuff. I only meant links from this forum.A 3.0 GPA is good !Now for a little friendly advice. IF you want to be a respected and listened to preacher YOU MUST go on to college and earn educational credentials.I believe, nay, I know that God wants His spokespersons to be the brightest. When you get those credentials you get respect and bring honor to a calling that is populated with pathetic morons.Having God call you to preach His word is the highest calling in this life. President of the United States is a step down.I hope you burn with desire to fulfill the calling of God and leave your mark on this world.Willowtree

I claimed that I could go to Genesis and demonstrate that God operates via the appearance of chance, fluke, accident.This claim was made in the context of the three words being descriptions of evidence against the belief that a Creator was involved. For some reason, some evolutionists, believe that chance, fluke, and accident rule out the God of Genesis. Erase the chalkboard of your mind and consider the following :Genesis Chapter 37 begins the account of the life of Joseph. I am going to speed through the story, and then at the end, pull the trigger and demonstrate the claim.Jacob loved Joseph more than the rest of his children. This favor ignited the envy and contempt of his brothers. To make matters worse Joseph dreamed dreams that enraged his brothers. He dreamed that his entire family would one day be made to bow down to him. That despite his youth he would somehow become greater than all of them.Joseph is the object of intense sibling hatred: he obeys his Father and goes out into the field to check on the herds and when his brothers see him coming their hatred boils over and they decide to kill him. But Reuben talks them out of it and they shove Joseph into a pit while mocking "lets see what becomes of his dreams". (37:20)But as they tarried in the field a caravan of Ishmaelites happened by: Joseph is sold by his brothers into slavery. The children of Jacob then concoct a cruel story of Joseph being killed by a wild animal which leaves their Father in a state of shock.Nice functional family we have here. So far this story could be the plot of any number of television dramas/movies.The Ishmaelites sell Joseph to Potiphar; God blesses Joseph in the eyes of Potiphar; Joseph becomes overseer and is quickly the focus of seduction by Potiphar's wife. Older woman is hot for young slave boy as she relentlessly pursues him. But Joseph has honor and awareness of God. He resists and she becomes scorned with hells fury.But Joseph is a foreigner with no rights and carries the stereotype of outsiders: sex crazed criminals coming into our country to break laws; he ends up in prison on a trumped up rape charge."I thought God was with him ?"......"with help like this....."But 39:21 says the Lord was with Joseph and gained him favor with the warden. Joseph becomes the top trustee and overseer in prison.Then Pharoah wakes up angry and blames the butler and the baker; they are cast into prison. Just so happens that the butler and the baker each have a dream; Joseph happens to notice their sad faces (40:6) which incites Joseph to ask why ? The butler and the baker confide that they each have dreamed an unordinary dream and no one to interpret.Looks like their lucky day - Joseph is a dreamer too and he without hesitation invokes the help of God and interprets the dreams. The butler's dream means he will be restored to his former position; but the baker wasn't so lucky. Then just like Joseph said the butler is restored and Joseph pleads with him to appeal to Pharoah in his behalf. The Book of Jasher says that this appeal angered God and cost Joseph two more years in jail for trusting man and not God.Then at the end of that two years Pharoah had a dream. And oddly enough none of his magicians could interpret it. But the baker suddenly remembers Joseph; they quickly clean him up; then 13 long years after his brothers sold him into slavery Joseph is standing in front of the most powerful man in the world.Joseph interprets Pharoah's dream; Proverbs 21:1 says "the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes".And just like that; a person who is not even eligible to become a ruler (Joseph the Hebrew) becomes supreme overlord of Egypt.Pharoah exalts Joseph so he can prepare Egypt for the up-coming famine; 7 years later famine, which forces Jacob and his children to look for food in Egypt: Joseph deals shrewdly with his brethren and tests them...........17 years after being sold in to slavery Jacob and family bow down to Joseph out of respect : dream fulfilled.What's the point ?Joseph's life and all the details reside in a source that claims to be the eternal word of God.The point is that GOD IS IN CONTROL.The hatred/envy of siblings (a common thing in life) caused Joseph's brothers to want to kill him. By chance, fluke, accident (CFA) (certainly the appearance thereof) Reuben intervenes and subsequently buys time for the Ishmaelite caravan to by CFA travel right where the incident of Joseph being held by his brothers is occurring.All because Joseph had a freaky dream that pissed them off. God caused Joseph's dream; God arranged for the caravan to be passing by: God landed Joseph in Potiphar's house: God allowed Potiphar's wife's libido to be the instrument to land Joseph in prison; God caused Pharoah to suddenly put the butler and baker into prison; God caused the butler and baker to dream dreams; God used the sad face of the butler and baker to cause Joseph to ask why; God caused the butler to forget about Joseph for two years; God caused Pharoah to dream his dream; God then causes the butler to remember Joseph etc.etc.etc.Strip away the claim of God pulling strings and this is the story of chance, fluke, and accident; View the story under the claim and it becomes the story of God controlling everything under the appearance of chance, fluke, accident.Why did God allow all the evil to happen to Joseph ?Because Joseph was on trial, the trial of his faith in God keeping the promise of His dreams to come to pass.Why ?BECAUSE PSALMS 105 SAYS GOD SENT A MAN TO EGYPT, Joseph, a man whose feet they hurt with irons UNTIL THE IRON OF FAITH ENTERED INTO HIS SOUL.Psalm 105 reveals that the entire ordeal of Joseph's life's story was the method (all the chance, flukes, and accidents) of God's way of sending Joseph to Egypt.Why ?To keep His word to Abraham and the prophecy of his descendants becoming like the sand of the sea and going down to Egypt so He could in the time of Moses bring them out into the land He promised Abraham - the promise land.The supreme source sanctioned by God to encounter Him is the record of His word.The supreme source says the primary method to deduce Him from is via what is seen/made. (Romans 1:20)Science has observed that what is seen/made can be accurately described in terms of chance, fluke, accident. IF God in the supreme source operates under the appearance of chance, fluke, accident while maintaining absolute control; then the claim of Romans 1:20 that He can be deduced in what is seen/made is strongly evidenced by the conclusions of science which observe creation to be the product of chance, fluke, and accident.The source of Genesis precedes the discoveries of evolution and Genesis proves God operates under the appearance of chance, fluke, accident. However, neither source, (supreme or primary) are overwhelming enough as to negate the need for faith, which is the one thing God wants, which is the one thing He cannot create.Source of everything I know : Dr.Gene Scott[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-10-2004][This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-10-2004]

The following excerpt is from another topic.Willowtree:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Cal State physicist Mark Perakh has written a book called "Unintelligent Design" (2004). This book is specifically written to counter the claims of Dembski, Behe, and Johnson.Perakh Quote :"Of course, the proponets of ID theory may insist that the alleged intelligent Creator is not constrained in His choice of design and can, if He wishes so, create systems which appear random despite having been designed. This argument would essentially make the entire dispute meaningless by erasing any discernable difference between objects or events that are designed and those that are not." END QUOTEI interpret this statement to say "randomness" also means a Creator/Designer was not involved.Once again, how does the scientific evidence of random (mutation) suggest no Creator ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------Quetzal :I cut and pasted the above quote to evidence the fact that there are evos who associate randomness, chance, fluke. etc.etc., to be evidence against a Creator/God of Genesis.You described the text from the OP as "statements", negative; they are questions.Evoution and the philosophy that undergirds has formulated a way to insulate itself from those who accuse it of making statements about the Divine without being qualified. This insulation is the claim of Divine neutrality, which I have evidenced (from Romans) to actually be Divine exclusionary.I know you are uncomfortable in this philosophic arena. But allow me to re-phrase one of the questions :Evolution only evidences-against God/Genesis IF the filter of your worldview is operating ?I will press you no more.