arndt@lymph.DEC (04/30/85)
Beth (JB) states:
"Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of where that really
unique form of life came from, and when they do they usually make
wierd faces and say something like "It always existed". But they
do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially
if they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and of
course, the old dust to dust stuff)."
***************8
Really neat, Beth. I'd like to meet your creationists. It would be fun
to throw stones and dirt at them and watch the 'weird faces', eh?
The whole POINT of 'where that really unique form of life came from' is
what Creationism is all about!!! You must have missed that on the way
to your conclusion. Are you saying they don't state the makeup of the
chemical milk shake God made before he 'breathed the breath of life' into
man to make him 'alive'? Gee, I guess you got us. But you also got
everyone else! Or even the chemical soup that gave rise to 'life', eh?
NO Creationists don't believe life came from non life!! Life came from
the living God. Since you use the example of man from the dust I speak of
the life of man. The 'life' God 'breathed'- whatever that means it meant
something to the 'primative' men who first wrote it down and IS a description
of some use - into man. The rest of the 'live' world is portrayed as also
being 'created' by God - who used 'nothing' to make the non living, but who
knows - it just doesn't say - HOW he made the 'living'. From the non living
or from nothing same as the non living.
In any case EVERYONE says 'something' "always existed". Bertrand Russell
when asked about the world just said, "It's there, that's all." Some hold
matter/energy is eternal. The Christian says God is eternal and the 'ground
of being' behind which it is not possible to go. If you ask who/what caused
God you ask a nonsense question since the definition of God precludes the
question. Little children (around 13 according to some on the net) don't
understand this but the rest do.
By the way, about that 'dust to dust' stuff. Everyone says man is made of
'dust' (not lint now) and to 'dust' returns. If you don't I'll send you a
box of dirt and stones and you can throw them at yourself for me and make
'weird faces'. It's just that some are more poetic about it.
Can you 'buy' it, Beth?
Regards,
Ken Arndt
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/02/85)
[My apologies for the previous posting of this response - it was a first draft and differs significantly from this final version, most notably at the end.] >[From: arndt@lymph.DEC, Message-ID: <1924@decwrl.UUCP>] > >Beth (JB) states: >> >>"Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of where that really >>unique form of life came from, and when they do they usually make >>wierd faces and say something like "It always existed". But they >>do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially >>if they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and of >>course, the old dust to dust stuff)." Just to clarify things a bit: As I attempted to explain to Paul in an earlier posting, the point of bringing up the origin of the creator was to merely distinguish that concept from the concept of the origin of life *on earth*. It was poorly phrased, but it was most certainly *not* meant to say that anyone should *have to* explain it (just as I am here not meaning to imply they don't have to). It's just that, with occasional exceptions, I find it easier to deal with one major point at a time, and I was trying to be overly precise. My apologies for the confusion it's caused. But since you brought it up... >.... >The whole POINT of 'where that really unique form of life came from' is >what Creationism is all about!!! >... > The Christian says God is eternal and the 'ground >of being' behind which it is not possible to go. If you ask who/what caused >God you ask a nonsense question since the definition of God precludes the >question. The first quote seems to say that the POINT of Creationism is to answer 'where that really unique form of life came from'. The second clearly states that that question can't be answered. They're mutually exclusive, Ken. Now for the response: What I said: I believe it's the case that even creationists believe that life on earth came from non-life. The issue is *how* it did it. Did non-living things rearrange themselves randomly until they were able to get up and go to the refrigerator during commercial breaks? Or did some really unique form of life rearrange the non-living stuff into living stuff? What Ken said: >NO Creationists don't believe life came from non life!! Life came from >the living God. Since you use the example of man from the dust I speak of >the life of man. The 'life' God 'breathed'- whatever that means it meant >something to the 'primative' men who first wrote it down and IS a description >of some use - into man. Would someone out there be kind enough to point out the difference between "The 'life' God 'breathed'...into man" and "some really unique form of life rearrange[d] the non-living stuff into living stuff"? >I'd like to meet your creationists. Ken Arndt, may I introduce Ken Arndt. The rest of your article is mud-slinging, Ken. I'll leave that to you. -- --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/03/85)
> In any case EVERYONE says 'something' "always existed". Bertrand Russell > when asked about the world just said, "It's there, that's all." Some hold > matter/energy is eternal. The Christian says God is eternal and the 'ground > of being' behind which it is not possible to go. If you ask who/what caused > God you ask a nonsense question since the definition of God precludes the > question. Little children (around 13 according to some on the net) don't > understand this but the rest do. I remember in both religion classes and, later, philosophy classes trying to come up with a definition of God. In this discussion, we have been trying to come to some kind of understanding of just what it is that creationism is. Now it looks like I can have both answers at once. Please,Ken, give us the definition of the Creator. I'll help by starting the sentence for you: X is the Creator (or God, if you prefer) if and only if X ... As an aside: since modern science deals with time as the fourth dimension, what does it mean when we say that something always existed?
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/06/85)
>Please,Ken, give us the definition of the Creator. I'll help >by starting the sentence for you: X is the Creator (or God, if >you prefer) if and only if X ... > I sure don't know what this question is doing in net.origins but I will answer it anyway. Asking a human being to define God is like asking an ant to define a human being, except it would be much easier for the ant. It is impossible for the finite to understand, much less define the infinite. God is described in the scriptures. We can never completely understand God but through the scriptures it is possible to know very much about him. The scriptures say He is infinite love, perfectly holy, just, merciful, patient, etc. All powerful, all seeing, all knowing. If you think you can put all this in a definition, you are crazy. Humans are very intelligent creatures. Some are more intelligent than others. Why must we be able to define and understand God before we can acknowledge Him. Humanism seems to be based on human arrogance and pride and lack of humility. We will never know and understand God until we can fall into the these catagories of the Sermon on the Mount. "Blessed are the poor in spirit.... Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness....They shall see God. The poor in spirit is the one who acknowledges his spiritual poverty, that is, his own spiritual shortcomings. The other is self-explanatory! Do you actually think that a God with all the attributes mentioned above would reveal himself only to those smart enough to define Him. God is not interested in Phd's, definitions, and scientific laws. He is interested in our inner beings. Thats why Christ said, "Unless you become as a little child, you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven!" Dan
neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (05/08/85)
****************************************************************************** > > In any case EVERYONE says 'something' "always existed". Bertrand Russell > when asked about the world just said, "It's there, that's all." Some hold > matter/energy is eternal. The Christian says God is eternal and the 'ground > of being' behind which it is not possible to go. If you ask who/what caused > God you ask a nonsense question since the definition of God precludes the > question. Little children (around 13 according to some on the net) don't > understand this but the rest do. > > Regards, > > Ken Arndt Shades of St. Anselm!! I bet you can even PROVE your god exists becuase his definition precludes nonexistance. Notice the fantastic strides made in the last 50 (500?) years, from being "blasphemy", the question of of God's origin has advanced all the way to "nonsense". Can you say "sophistry", Ken? Good! Now try "ad hominem". Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Blame it on the Rolling Denelcor, Inc. Stones" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/08/85)
> >Please,Ken, give us the definition of the Creator. I'll help > >by starting the sentence for you: X is the Creator (or God, if > >you prefer) if and only if X ... > > > > I sure don't know what this question is doing in net.origins but I > will answer it anyway. Asking a human being to define God is like > asking an ant to define a human being, except it would be much easier > for the ant. This was net.origins because Ken Arndt stated that he not only could, but had defined God, and that was the scientific information needed to explain the creator. The fact that he has not repeated the definition (unless that "Ground of whatever" junk is his definition) leads me to believe that he will not gain a place in history as the first human to do so. The rest of your sermon, of course, belongs with the other of the trash on net.religion.