Ultimately, in all cases, I can’t give you answers.
However, in the two cases I presented above, we can figure it out.
One is allowed to violate the Sabbath to save a life because the value of saving a life is greater than the value of Sabbath-observance.
One is allowed to marry his deceased childless brother’s widow as a means of allowing the memory of the deceased brother to be perpetuated.
Ultimately, I’m sure that God has His reasons for doing things the way He does. Unfortunately, God has not offered me the chance to glean the inner reasonings for all His commandments. If He does, and I find out the reasons, I’ll be sure to let you know.
No. God is not in the universe. Remember the Russian cosmonaut who said he had looked around, up in space, for God? He thought he was being funny, I assume. Or maybe the communists forced him to say that. It would have been appropriate for their agenda at that time.
Also, there is no known scientific test for God. However, God has revealed Himself to many of us through the Bible. We can also see the work of God in the universe. For example: the creation of life. It requires an amazing intelligence to design, assemble and program life. Humans, with all of our supposed intelligence, cannot do it. Yet.
I suspect we will never be able to achieve the creation of life, but I could be proven wrong on that point some day. We’ll have to wait and see.
Fair enough. Now it’s just a matter of semantics. You can look at it either way, I suppose.
You can say that the rule of observing the Sabbath doesn’t apply when a life is at stake, or you can say that the rule is that the Sabbath is to be observed when a life is not at stake. As is asked in the Talmud: Mah Nafshach? What is the (practical) difference?
You can search for anything you want. It’s perfectly legitimate, from a scientific standpoint to search for gods. That doesn’t mean you’re going to find them.
You believe God is “revealed” in the Bible. That doesn’t make it a fact.
Life was not intelligently “designed,” “assembled” or “programmed.” Evolution is filled with mistakes and dead ends. The human body is riddled with imperfections as well as superfluous or obsolescent traits. Abiogenesis (“creation”) and evolution do not require the least bit of intelligence or design.
Then there are no exceptions. If there seem to be, then it can only be because we don’t have all of the rules available to us. Expecting humans to conform to a code of behavior they’re not fully aware of is not reasonable.
Additionally, this position is inconsistent with the idea that God is merciful. How do you account for this?
It used to be impossible to create diamonds in the lab. The artificial creation of diamonds requires great intelligence. Does that prove that natural diamonds are the product of design?
If you want to claim that it requires intelligence to “design, assemble and program life” then you have to deal with two things:
1.) The evidence that life on earth came from nonliving materials, as explained in my abiogenesis FAQ, found in this thread.
2.) The evidence that the “programming” was the result of natural selection, as explained in my molecular genetics FAQ.
For that matter, take the complexity of viruses. Are they the products of design or of natural selection? According to most IDists, the gene regulatory systems of viruses can’t have come about by chance. But the evidence shows clearly that they resulted from natural selection.
No it’s not. Do you understand every section of the IRS code? As long as I know how to apply the rules, that’s fine, even if I don’t fully understand it. I can trust an accountant to advise me on what the IRS means in it’s tax code and I can rely on a Rabbi to advise me what the Torah instructs in certain cases.
Why not? Does it really matter if I don’t know why I can’t eat pork?
No, and that means that many people fall into violation of the law by accident.
Yes, but you can probably always get access to an accountant when it comes time to pay your taxes. You can’t have access to a Rabbi every time you have to make a moral decision.
Besides, in both of those examples, some people understand the way the law (or the Law) is applied. We can objectively determine what the standards are (even if those standards are created by humans).
If the rules of morality aren’t given to human beings – if we’re not told what the rules are – then how can we expected to obey them?
Obeying rules without knowing the reasons for those rules is dangerous. It may only be a problem with translating ancient Hebrew into English, but the standard argument that holds eating pork in order to save your life is in error. If you eat pork to save your life, are you committing a sin?
Okay. You must be smarter than me. (Not hard to do.) What, from a scientific standpoint, would be your test to locate God? I have seen scientists discuss this for years and not reach a conclusion. If you are merely searching for “gods”, as in supernatural entities, those you can find. It might not be scientific, but many people have encountered the supernatural through the ouija board. In most cases they have regretted playing around with something dangerous. I strongly suggest you read some accounts of this, instead of attempting this yourself. Learn from the mistakes of others.
It does for me, and for millions of other Christians. When you meet God, then you will understand. I cannot do it for you. Accepting God is a personal thing. Rejecting Him is also a personal thing. You don’t get to do it as part of a group. Each one of us will die eventually. You might intellectually agree with that statement but, as most of us do, you could easily think it applies to other person. When you die, will you be ready my friend?
That is your current belief. Perhaps you should take another look… If the creation of life did not require tremendous design, assembly and programming intelligence, why haven’t humans created numerous examples? The reason is clear: We are not smart enough. We cannot even figure out the programming of life, although we do play around with it by mixing genes from some species into others. I’m not happy about that, but I am rambling and out of time for now.
I think there may be a word missing there: “yet”. We are not smart enough yet. And perhaps we never will be. Perhaps. 500 years ago, we weren’t yet smart enough for heavier than air flight, space travel, organ transplants… well, you get the picture. Who can say what humanity will be doing 500 years from now.
Humans have been “programming” life for thousands of years. Dogs, horses, cows, cats, and most of our food crops have been the result. It is only recently that we can, and have directly meddled with the genetic code, though. You are aware that it is possible to change the genetic code of fruitflies so that they grow legs on their head, right?
What would convince you that divine intervention is not necessary to create life? People are working on building viruses from scratch now. Would taking chunks of DNA and building and growing a virus be enough, or would they have to start with raw nucleic acids? You might argue that it couldn’t happen without intelligence, but this would certainly eliminate the need for a god.
First- you assume that the creation of life requires tremendous design, that’s one assertion in and of itself.
Then you say that mankind isn’t smart enough, another assertion. It’s true that we haven’t figured out the programming of life, but we are progressing. 1000 years ago we had no idea about germs, is that the case now?
Like I said, we only recently learned how to make diamonds. That doesn’t mean that diamonds prove the existence of God. It just means that we didn’t fully understand the conditions under which they form. The fact that so much intelligence is needed to make them in the laboratory now doesn’t prove that intelligence is needed to make them in nature. It just means that it’s difficult to replicate the natural conditions in the laboratory, so we have to substitute some technical knowhow. Abiogenesis is the same way. Just because we can’t make life in the lab yet doesn’t mean that an intelligence is needed to create life in nature. When we do create life, the fact that it will require intelligence to do so won’t mean that life was originally created by an intelligence. It will just mean that scientists can’t afford to make an ocean of RNAs and wait millions of years for life to evolve, any more than they can make a lake of molten rock and wait millions of years for diamonds to crystallize out of it.
The fact of the matter is that the evidence clearly points to abiogenesis by natural causes, shaped by natural selection. If GOM wants to say that that’s wrong, he’ll need to rebut the evidence, rather than just make assertions.
