The Transcendental Argument for God

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I think you missed the point. The issue was a question about death prior to the Fall. According to JR's post 17 all death does not equal death in the Biblical sense---plant death does not equal death. Do you agree with that? What death counts as death? Insect death? invertebrate death?
Death, in the biblical sense of the word, is always a spiritual separation. Physical death happens when one's spirit separates from the body. Spiritual death is when the spirit of a man (human) is separated from God. It is the later of these two that definitely would not have occurred prior to the Fall. Whether physical death was possible is an open question. The Tree of Life existed in the Garden of Eden and so anyone who ate of that Tree certainly would not have died physically but those who had not, it seems, would have been able to die physically. Otherwise, the Tree of Life would have served no purpose.

Plants, of course, do not have a spirit at all and so could not have died in the sense spoken of above and the extent to which the above applies to animals is speculation. Certainly some form of decay would have occurred. The banana peels that Adam and Eve would have discarded would have been consumed by microbes and recycled into the Earth, perhaps in a process identical to what happens today. And things like insects, worms and the like would have likely been on the menu for things like birds and rodents, and birds and rodents would have been on the menu for larger animals, etc.
 

Avajs

Active member
Death, in the biblical sense of the word, is always a spiritual separation. Physical death happens when one's spirit separates from the body. Spiritual death is when the spirit of a man (human) is separated from God. It is the later of these two that definitely would not have occurred prior to the Fall. Whether physical death was possible is an open question. The Tree of Life existed in the Garden of Eden and so anyone who ate of that Tree certainly would not have died physically but those who had not, it seems, would have been able to die physically. Otherwise, the Tree of Life would have served no purpose.

Plants, of course, do not have a spirit at all and so could not have died in the sense spoken of above and the extent to which the above applies to animals is speculation. Certainly some form of decay would have occurred. The banana peels that Adam and Eve would have discarded would have been consumed by microbes and recycled into the Earth, perhaps in a process identical to what happens today. And things like insects, worms and the like would have likely been on the menu for things like birds and rodents, and birds and rodents would have been on the menu for larger animals, etc.
First question I have is how long was the period between Day 6 and the Fall?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
First question I have is how long was the period between Day 6 and the Fall?
A week.

Of course, there is no way to be dogmatic about that answer but there is good reason to accept the conjecture that Adam and Even fell on the following Friday.

See the link in JudgeRightly's post for details.

I'm curious to know why that would have been your first question.
 

Avajs

Active member
A week.

Of course, there is no way to be dogmatic about that answer but there is good reason to accept the conjecture that Adam and Even fell on the following Friday.

See the link in JudgeRightly's post for details.

I'm curious to know why that would have been your first question.
To paraphrase Sgt Friday "Just trying to get the facts, Maam, just the facts" Because some people make a big deal of "no death before the Fall" and read that as NO DEATH, which seems a little different than your reading. When I say death, I mean actual death, physically, since I dont accept "spiritual" death meaning human spirit separated from God since I dont accept God as a person/thing/actual concept or being. So just trying to sort out your reading of the story--because per you there was animal death pre Fall--insects, rodents, etc. Which effectively deals with the issue of why do felines have big canine teeth etc--it avoids the idea that every animal was a vegetarian preFall.
Otherwise, you get into the question of why did your God make cats with big canines if they were vegetarians---was he all knowing and knew Adam and Eve would disobey him so cats were just ready for the big food change?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
God-hater, you've given us some textbook examples of self-defeating atheistspeak stupidity, here:
I dont accept God as a person
By your word, "God", are you referring to a person? Yes or No?

  • If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us: "I don[']t accept [a person] as a person".
  • If No, then by your word "God" you are not referring to God.
Otherwise, you get into the question of why did your God make cats with big canines if they were vegetarians---was he all knowing and knew Adam and Eve would disobey him so cats were just ready for the big food change?
By your phrase "your God", are you referring to God? Yes or No?

If Yes, then why did you choose to not just write "God", and choose to, instead, write "your God"? That little shtick is a common way you modern God-haters habitually, robotically advertise your irrational hatred against God.
 

Avajs

Active member
God-hater, you've given us some textbook examples of self-defeating atheistspeak stupidity, here:

By your word, "God", are you referring to a person? Yes or No?

  • If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us: "I don[']t accept [a person] as a person".
  • If No, then by your word "God" you are not referring to God.

By your phrase "your God", are you referring to God? Yes or No?

If Yes, then why did you choose to not just write "God", and choose to, instead, write "your God"? That little shtick is a common way you modern God-haters habitually, robotically advertise your irrational hatred against God.
God is a word. I don't hate words.
I wrote God because Clete used that word. I wrote your God because Clete used that word and to differentiate it from Allah, Thor, etc.
Why do you always seem so angry?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I asked @Avajs:
By your word, "God", are you referring to a person? Yes or No?
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer the question I asked you, God-hater?

God is a word.
God is not a word. The word, "God", is a word.

I don't hate words.
What's your "point"? Nobody asked whether or not you hate words, God-hater.

I wrote God
False. You did not write God, since God is not a word. You wrote the word, "God".

You say you're in your late 70s, right? It's crazy that you can have gotten to that age yet remain ignorant of something as elementary as quotation marks.

to differentiate it from Allah, Thor, etc.
Are you even referring to something or someone by either of your words, "Allah" and "Thor"? If not (and I don't assume you are), then you're not differentiating at all, but instead are merely stringing your words together in a cognitively-meaningless way -- which, of course, is the vast majority of what atheistspeak is.

I wrote your God because Clete used that word
Do you mean you wrote the phrase, "your God"? I already knew and stated in my post the truth about why you God-haters choose to say things like "your God" and "your god" instead of simply saying "God".
 

Avajs

Active member
I asked @Avajs:

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer the question I asked you, God-hater?


God is not a word. The word, "God", is a word.


What's your "point"? Nobody asked whether or not you hate words, God-hater.


False. You did not write God, since God is not a word. You wrote the word, "God".

You say you're in your late 70s, right? It's crazy that you can have gotten to that age yet remain ignorant of something as elementary as quotation marks.


Are you even referring to something or someone by either of your words, "Allah" and "Thor"? If not (and I don't assume you are), then you're not differentiating at all, but instead are merely stringing your words together in a cognitively-meaningless way -- which, of course, is the vast majority of what atheistspeak is.


Do you mean you wrote the phrase, "your God"? I already knew and stated in my post the truth about why you God-haters choose to say things like "your God" and "your god" instead of simply saying "God".
Wow!!
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Why do you always seem so angry?
What do you mean by that? Please describe exactly what (if anything) you mean by "seem so angry".

Over the years I've gotten that same, mindless reaction that I got from you from countless others, your fellow atheistspeak-chanting God-haters. All because I ask y'all questions about your atheistspeak language game, questions to which y'all know you have no hope of ever responding rationally.😁
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
To paraphrase Sgt Friday "Just trying to get the facts, Maam, just the facts" Because some people make a big deal of "no death before the Fall" and read that as NO DEATH, which seems a little different than your reading. When I say death, I mean actual death, physically, since I dont accept "spiritual" death meaning human spirit separated from God since I dont accept God as a person/thing/actual concept or being. So just trying to sort out your reading of the story--because per you there was animal death pre Fall--insects, rodents, etc. Which effectively deals with the issue of why do felines have big canine teeth etc--it avoids the idea that every animal was a vegetarian preFall.
Don't end up making the same idiot mistake the Ayn Rand made and think that everything that passes for Christianity even remotely resembles what the bible actually teaches.

First and foremost my worldview is rational and it is Christian only in the sense that it is consistent with what the bible ACTUALLY teaches, not what some moron happens to say from behind a pulpit.

Otherwise, you get into the question of why did your God make cats with big canines if they were vegetarians---was he all knowing and knew Adam and Eve would disobey him so cats were just ready for the big food change?
God is not "all knowing" in the sense you are using the term here and, even if He were, it would not answer the question you ask. The majority of Christians have no idea how to answer such a question nor would they the slightest inkling that the premise of the question is flawed.

Also, in relation to this exchange with 7djengo7, He is THE God, there is only one, which makes Him your God whether you choose to acknowledge His existence or not.

Incidentally, the fact that you can read and understand this sentence is proof that God exists. Every intelligible syllable that ever registers in your mind, stacks up one more piece of evidence that you're wrong and you can't say a word about it, whether for or against, without borrowing from MY worldview and tacitly accepting it's validity.

If you don't believe God exists, what do you believe and why?
 
Last edited:

Avajs

Active member
Hunh, no, I don't make the Ayn Rand mistake because I am aware there are many flavors of Christianity and many interpretations of the Bible and other Holy Books. Which raises the question of why whatever god exists cannot or will not make things plain and understandable
The fact that I can read and understand what you wrote is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more, no deity needed.
I see no evidence for the existence of god, certainly not one that depends on the Bible stories.
I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago. Earth 3-4 billion years ago. Life started, dont know how, and then life evolved. And here we are--humans, pathogens, plants, other animals etc. That is where the evidence I am aware of leads me.
What do you mean by that? Please describe exactly what (if anything) you mean by "seem so angry".

Over the years I've gotten that same, mindless reaction that I got from you from countless others, your fellow atheistspeak-chanting God-haters. All because I ask y'all questions about your atheistspeak language game, questions to which y'all know you have no hope of ever responding rationally.😁
atheistspeak language game? Interesting.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Hunh, no, I don't make the Ayn Rand mistake because I am aware there are many flavors of Christianity and many interpretations of the Bible and other Holy Books.
The premise of your implied argument here would suggest otherwise. I'd wager that you have no idea what the bible actually teaches about almost anything.

Which raises the question of why whatever god exists cannot or will not make things plain and understandable
He has done precisely that! It is human beings that confuse it - very often on purpose.

The fact that I can read and understand what you wrote is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more, no deity needed.
On the contrary. I will prove it - if you stick around long enough.

I see no evidence for the existence of god, certainly not one that depends on the Bible stories.
What you see or don't see is irrelevant to whether such evidence exists. A lamp doesn't shut off because a blind man walks into the room.

I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago.
Why?

Earth 3-4 billion years ago.
Why?

Life started, dont know how, and then life evolved.
Why? (i.e. why do you believe this?)

And here we are--humans, pathogens, plants, other animals etc. That is where the evidence I am aware of leads me.
Evidence?

What qualifies as evidence and why?

To be clear, I am not asking for specifics here. I'm not trying to start a debate about evolution. I'm asking you, in general terms, what qualifies something as evidence for a particular proposition?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
atheistspeak language game?
Are you trying to ask a question?

I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago. Earth 3-4 billion years ago.
What do you mean by "year"? The time it takes for the earth to make one full revolution around the sun?

Have you ever heard that piece of atheistpeak stupidity wherein God-haters say something along the lines of that God couldn't have created the earth in six days, because He didn't create the sun until Day Four? They foolishly claim that you can't have days until you have the sun for the earth to revolve around. (Then, of course, the same boobs will turn around and say "...therefore, billions of years!" apparently too dumb to see the obvious fact that if you can't have days passing, then you certainly can't have years passing, let alone billions of years.)
 

Avajs

Active member
Hunh, no, I don't make the Ayn Rand mistake because I am aware there are many flavors of Christianity and many interpretations of the Bible and other Holy Books. Which raises the question of why whatever god exists cannot or will not make things plain and understandable
The fact that I can read and understand what you wrote is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more, no deity needed.
I see no evidence for the existence of god, certainly not one that depends on the Bible stories.
I believe the universe started (dont know how) 14 billion +/- years ago. Earth 3-4 billion years ago. Life started, dont know how, and then life evolved. And here we are--humans, pathogens, plants, other animals etc. That is where the evidence I am aware of leads me.

atheistspeak language game? Interesting.

Are you trying to ask a question?


What do you mean by "year"? The time it takes for the earth to make one full revolution around the sun?

Have you ever heard that piece of atheistpeak stupidity wherein God-haters say something along the lines of that God couldn't have created the earth in six days, because He didn't create the sun until Day Four? They foolishly claim that you can't have days until you have the sun for the earth to revolve around. (Then, of course, the same boobs will turn around and say "...therefore, billions of years!" apparently too dumb to see the obvious fact that if you can't have days passing, then you certainly can't have years passing, let alone billions of years.)
Hard to beat your logic
 

Avajs

Active member
The premise of your implied argument here would suggest otherwise. I'd wager that you have no idea what the bible actually teaches about almost anything.


He has done precisely that! It is human beings that confuse it - very often on purpose.


On the contrary. I will prove it - if you stick around long enough.


What you see or don't see is irrelevant to whether such evidence exists. A lamp doesn't shut off because a blind man walks into the room.


Why?


Why?


Why? (i.e. why do you believe this?)


Evidence?

What qualifies as evidence and why?

To be clear, I am not asking for specifics here. I'm not trying to start a debate about evolution. I'm asking you, in general terms, what qualifies something as evidence for a particular proposition?
A dictionary definition of evidence is good to start with "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid", work for you, or do you have a different definition
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
A dictionary definition of evidence is good to start with "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid", work for you, or do you have a different definition
As you say, it is a place to start but I ask the question, not to discuss evidence per se, but to get to your more fundamental presuppositions. I know that such leading questions can get tiresome and so I won't string you along for much longer. You're already very close to the answer.

Notice the circular reasoning contained within that definition. The "facts" that indicate whether a proposition is "true". If truth is being defined by facts, and facts are defined as what is true, then we end up with a logical loop. To avoid circular reasoning, you'd need to clarify the independent basis by which facts are established and how evidence functions without presupposing the conclusion it is meant to support.

So, by what independent basis would you establish something as a fact and how would you know whether it indicated that a proposition was true?

There is a one word answer to those two questions. It's starts with the letter "L".
 

Avajs

Active member
As you say, it is a place to start but I ask the question, not to discuss evidence per se, but to get to your more fundamental presuppositions. I know that such leading questions can get tiresome and so I won't string you along for much longer. You're already very close to the answer.

Notice the circular reasoning contained within that definition. The "facts" that indicate whether a proposition is "true". If truth is being defined by facts, and facts are defined as what is true, then we end up with a logical loop. To avoid circular reasoning, you'd need to clarify the independent basis by which facts are established and how evidence functions without presupposing the conclusion it is meant to support.

So, by what independent basis would you establish something as a fact and how would you know whether it indicated that a proposition was true?

There is a one word answer to those two questions. It's starts with the letter "L".
Are you suggesting you personally clarify the independent basis by which facts are established? Do you accept the fact of plate tectonics? If so, how did you determine the underlying facts that support that theory?
 
Top