Complex?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 5528
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Complex?

Post by Gadianton »

I'm not convinced at all that the evolutionary trajectory of animals and mankind could have stood a chance at arriving where we're at today without a LOT of gore and blood being spilled.
Exactly the point. So why use it? Why not simply create Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden like the scriptures say he did? Are you saying God couldn't have created Adam and Eve directly? We, humans, may be able to create humans or other animals or even designer animals from scratch in the foreseeable future. Wooly Mammoth's have been fully sequenced and if one doesn't get cloned within my lifetime, I'll be shocked. A.I. has been exceptionally useful to the life sciences.
We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have. They get rid of some of the people who have been there for 25 years and they work great and then you throw them out and they're replaced by criminals.
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by malkie »

huckelberry wrote:
Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:00 am
malkie wrote:
Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:55 am
Actually :D just doing it a lot is good for survival in that sense - there is no need whatsoever to enjoy it.

In fact, some religions/societies appear to teach that it is evil, especially for women, to like sex.

One "definition" of the doctrine of Scottish Presbyterianism, for example, is "the fear that some people somewhere are enjoying themselves".
Well there have been some people who try to resist God's obvious design that sex be enjoyable and a boon to families but I don't think it is all that common.

I also doubt the existence of such a Presbyterian doctrine but the idea is worth a chuckle. Some people may slide closer to such ideas as looking down on somebody's happiness is a much cheaper way to feel virtuous than trying to help others.
You're correct, of course. I believe I should have inserted the word "humourous" - as in 'One humourous "definition" of the doctrine of Scottish Presbyterianism,'
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 7970
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Complex?

Post by Moksha »

RFM shows that adding certain information is a demonstration of artifice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zScyF4ZmkQ
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Complex?

Post by I Have Questions »

Moksha wrote:
Mon Jun 23, 2025 7:22 am
RFM shows that adding certain information is a demonstration of artifice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zScyF4ZmkQ
Please can you share some specifics?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 7970
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Complex?

Post by Moksha »

I Have Questions wrote:
Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:22 am
Moksha wrote:
Mon Jun 23, 2025 7:22 am
RFM shows that adding certain information is a demonstration of artifice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zScyF4ZmkQ
Please can you share some specifics?
Specifically, adding the Nephite monetary explanation indicated that young Joseph was making the whole thing up. That level of complexity was an artifice of a non-genuine story.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by malkie »

Moksha wrote:
Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:37 am
I Have Questions wrote:
Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:22 am
Please can you share some specifics?
Specifically, adding the Nephite monetary explanation indicated that young Joseph was making the whole thing up. That level of complexity was an artifice of a non-genuine story.
We have been taught to liken the scriptures unto ourselves, and to find the lessons in them for our own day.

Perhaps if we pray about the Nephite coinage system we might discover a deeper meaning in the news that the U.S. Mint is moving forward with plans to kill the penny.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:06 pm
MG: I'm not convinced at all that the evolutionary trajectory of animals and mankind could have stood a chance at arriving where we're at today without a LOT of gore and blood being spilled.
Exactly the point. So why use it? Why not simply create Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden like the scriptures say he did? Are you saying God couldn't have created Adam and Eve directly?
I think it was more than likely that God 'created' Adam and Eve through natural processes.

Regards,
MG
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Complex?

Post by I Have Questions »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 12:18 am
Gadianton wrote:
Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:06 pm
Exactly the point. So why use it? Why not simply create Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden like the scriptures say he did? Are you saying God couldn't have created Adam and Eve directly?
I think it was more than likely that God 'created' Adam and Eve through natural processes.

Regards,
MG
What do you mean, specifically, by the term “natural processes”?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Marcus
God
Posts: 6752
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by Marcus »

I Have Questions wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 6:19 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 12:18 am
I think it was more than likely that God 'created' Adam and Eve through natural processes.

Regards,
MG
What do you mean, specifically, by the term “natural processes”?
So... there's a god, but he's bound by exactly the same natural processes as humans. And a human is trying to tell us that he knows god's attributes, and that we must obey god--by obeying the rules the human tells us that god set. Including believing and doing what this human says we should.

This is how every religious scam starts, isn't it? And most MLMs. It's just a coincidence that affinity fraud and Mormonism thrive in the exact same location, right?? :roll:
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

I Have Questions wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 6:19 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Jun 28, 2025 12:18 am
I think it was more than likely that God 'created' Adam and Eve through natural processes.

Regards,
MG
What do you mean, specifically, by the term “natural processes”?
Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744

I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.

And no, I will not respond to your next question having to do with, "Well, give us the top five reasons Collins gives for his belief in God and in Jesus Christ and the Christian story."

Read the book.

Regards,
Mg
Post Reply