Month: November 2023

The following discussion took place due to the video Atheist vs Christian on the laws of logic Bible Thumping Wingnut Show. When all segments are posted, you will be able to find them all here.

It all began when Whatsisface 4 commented
A small point, if the universe is natural, it’s not accidental. If it were natural, it could only act according to it’s properties, and as it’s here, if natural, it’s here according to it’s properties. That mean’s it’s not accidental. Also, not everything in the universe is in constant flux. The properties and behavior of the fundamental forces and particles do not change.
If the Laws of Logic are absolute, then they would apply no matter the origin of the universe. Even when there were no people on this Earth, that you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true, even though no one had thought it. That would be true right at the beginning of the universe. Logic is not contingent on anything, otherwise it wouldn’t be absolute.

I, Ken Ammi, replied
Most interesting, friend. I agree that if the universe is natural, it is not accidental—but on an Atheist worldview it must be. If the universe is natural, and so not accidental, then it had a creator and the creator established its properties—I would not say that “it’s here according to it’s properties” since that would not explain WHY it is here in the first place, a more accurate statement would be that it functions according to its properties.
As for not everything being in constant flux, I supposed that we may have say “The properties and behavior of the fundamental forces and particles do not change” that based on our limited knowledge. However, that there would be such regulatory properties, forces, etc. means that Atheists also believe in styled administrators of the universe (that are intangible, invisible, etc.)—just not a personal one. Yet moreover, the fact is that while at the moment “The properties and behavior of the fundamental forces and particles do not change”: the universe is running out of usable energy and no more is being added to it (predicted in Genesis) so that, at least eventually, all will change, all is flux.
The issue with the claim that “If the Laws of Logic are absolute, then they would apply no matter the origin of the universe” is that the laws of logic being absolute—just like all of the universe’s properties, fundamental forces, etc.—are a direct result of the origin of the universe as if it resulted from nothing causing nothing (or an eternal something: an uncaused first cause) to explode for no reason then things could have been very different—or, not been at all: recall the classic question, why is there something rather than nothing.
But that “Logic is not contingent on anything” is an assertion as is that which supposedly buttresses it “otherwise it wouldn’t be absolute.” Life, the universe and everything is based on prior information, the only known source of information is mind and that mind is what which we call God. Thus, logic is absolute because it is grounded on a logical mind which keeps it as is, absolute.

Whatsisface 4
You said…”If the universe is natural, and so not accidental, then it had a creator” …that does not follow. You are making an argument from personal incredulity, ie, I can’t see how this can be naturally, therefore God. That’s an unsound argument. You said…”But that “Logic is not contingent on anything” is an assertion as is that which supposedly buttresses it “otherwise it wouldn’t be absolute.” Life, the universe and everything is based on prior information, the only known source of information is mind and that mind is what which we call God. Thus, logic is absolute because it is grounded on a logical mind which keeps it as is, absolute.” If there where no minds or God, that you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true.

Ken Ammi
Friend, there are a few issues here such as that “If the universe is natural…then it had a creator” and since nature (the natural) cannot account for itself (incompleteness theorem) and so it has to have a cause, a creator, and that cause is must be un-natural.
Also, you argued that “if the universe is natural, it’s not accidental” and since it is natural, then it is not accidental, if it is not accidental, then it was purposeful, and if purposeful then it had a creator.
In arguing “If there where no minds or God, that you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true” you are close to accuracy but are committing a category error by correlating plural “minds” in general (I assume you mean human mind) and “God” which is of another category although also “mind”ful.
That “you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true” is “there where no minds or God” is begging the question and based on an assertion which essentially deconstructs the whole concept of marriage, bachelorhood, etc. as no minds and no God would mean no marriage, no bachelors, no humans, no existence, etc.

Whatsisface 4
When you say the universe cannot account for itself, how do you know? That you cannot have a married bachelor is a universal absolute, just as one plus one equals two, is. By all means tell me in what way it could ever be untrue. That there would be no minds or bachelors or marriage is beside the point.

Ken Ammi
I know the universe cannot account for itself because it had a beginning.
Claiming that is a universal absolute that you cannot have a married bachelor and that one plus one equals two are conclusions and my point has been that your worldview provides you no premise upon which to come to such conclusions.
I mean, I realize that you believe that those are facts based on a very long series of accidents but then again you have to also jump to the conclusion that facts are accessible, that truth is knowable, that adhering to facts and truth is an imperative, etc.
And when you write, “tell me in what way it could ever be untrue” you are demanding adherence to truth, logic and ethics yet, without a premise so you see how your worldview fails before it even begins as you can only jump to conclusions.

Whatsisface 4
Well, our present state of the universe had a beginning, but whether there was something before that or not and whether it began or not, we just don’t know. You do not know that the universe can’t account for itself. You certainly have no understanding of the physics of it, because no one does. You misunderstand about numbers and married bachelors. All it needs to see the truth that you can’t have a married bachelor is an understanding of words married and bachelor. Nothing else is needed.

Ken Ammi
Since “our present state of the universe had a beginning” then it “can’t account for itself” much like you cannot account for yourself within the context of your existence (this is somewhat like the argument form contingency). Now, if you want to argue that I “have no understanding of the physics of it, because no one does” then I will say that what I am doing is not arguing about what we do not know (which is what you are doing) but about that we do know: the universe had a beginning and therefore, cannot account for itself.
Also, our universe is a time, space, matter continuum and Genesis 1:1 states “In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]”—seems that someone told us about His creation long ago.
Lastly, of course more is needed to affirm that “you can’t have a married bachelor” than “an understanding of words married and bachelor” as the meaning of those words can change (in fact, the meaning of marriage changed not too long ago) since this is not about grammar and dictionary definitions but about logic and your worldview cannot account of logic.

Whatsisface 4
Ken Ammi Huh? The beginning of the present state of the universe is accounted for by what came before. But, no one knows the physics and you are just sweeping that point under the carpet. You are making an argument of logic before all the physics is known. Logic is only as good as the information fed into it, and all the information isn’t in yet. Something to ponder, if space and time began at the big bang, then there was never a time when the universe didn’t exist. Genesis gets a lot wrong. Re married bachelor, you are not making sense here. You know very well the meaning of the word married, and the meaning of the word bachelor. They are in contradiction to one another and if you’re married you can’t be a bachelor and visa versa. Can God make a square circle?

Ken Ammi
I am sweeping nothing under the carpet (and if I was, your worldview provides you no premise upon which to condemn me for it anyhow) but noted that I am arguing for what we know and you are arguing from what we do not: you say “all the information isn’t in yet” and it never will but we work with what we have.
However, you did sweep Genesis 1:1 under the carpet: and merely asserting “Genesis gets a lot wrong” is just that—a baseless, unevidenced, unargued conclusion that is generic.
To say “if space and time began at the big bang, then there was never a time when the universe didn’t exist” is not only incoherent but goes again all modern cosmogony.
My worldview provides a premise for why there cannot be a married bachelor while your does not.
As to “Can God make a square circle?”: no.

Whatsisface 4
The maker of this video is confused. He thinks the laws of logic are things with a nature, when they are just our descriptions of the nature of things. Take the law of Identity, A=A. There are two things going on here, the statement A=A, and that to what it refers, being, the consistent nature of things to be themselves. So what is that needs accounting for, the statement A=A, or that to what it refers?

Ken Ammi
Friend, you are confused: you are committing a category error. Two things are meant by “laws of logic” 1) the laws themselves in their ontology, nature and essence which are invisible, intangible, inaccessible to our senses, immaterial, non-physical, etc. and 2) just our descriptions of the nature of things.
But I can see why you are desperate to demand “what is that needs accounting for, the statement A=A, or that to what it refers?” since your worldview fails to do so. But your worldview’s failure does not mean that there is no accounting for it nor that accounting for it is irrelevant.

Whatsisface 4
I’m tired, so here and now I will reply to the last point. If God cannot make a square circle, then He is subject to the laws of Logic, so cannot be the author of them. That a circle is round is the only way a circle can be, so you can’t have a square circle. All that’s needed for this to be so is an understanding of what it means for something to be a circle. God isn’t necessary in order for this to be so.
You didn’t answer my question. What needs accounting for re the law of Identity, the statement A=A, or that to what it refers? What else is there, beside the statement and that to what it refers? What the statement refers to is the only way things could be, ie, things being themselves. Because things can only be what they are, God isn’t involved in the laws of logic.

Ken Ammi
Friend, your comment to the last point is myopic and illogical: since God cannot make a square circle, then He is subject to the laws of logic and He is subject to them as He authored them or rather, they are a part of His very ontological nature and essence, they are reflections of His mind.
The reason why a circle is round, that is the only way a circle can be, and why you cannot have a square circle is that God created a rational creation, which functions rationally, and He populated it with rational beings who could rationally discern it and, in turn, discern that it was created by a rational being—this, in fact, is the theological premise for the scientific method.
Now, if you want to (myopically and illogically) demand that “God isn’t necessary in order for this [for something to be a circle] to be so” you are ignoring that a circle is a circle for a reason but your worldview tells you that a circle is circular by accident, that laws such as logic are accidents and that, in fact, life, the universe and everything (including your thoughts) are accidents and that is such an unevidenced and nonsensical endeavor that it discredits itself. And, by the way, even if you decide to opt for that view—that nothing accidentally caused nothing to accidentally explode for no reason and accidentally created everything accidentally without meaning: accidentally from nothing, by nothing, to nothing and for nothing—then you are left jumping from “is” to “ought” in an unjustified manner and you have zero reason for demanding adherence to truth, logic and ethics which means that all of our discussion has been a moot point.
What needs accounting for regarding A=A is why this is the case: your worldview tells you that it is because of a very long series of accidents—and even if this is so you then foresight the ability to demand adhering to A=A. Now, when you merely subjectively assert that this “is the only way things could be, ie, things being themselves” is tragically myopic since when you begin with nothing causing an accident then things could have been, at least, a quadrillion different ways. Thus, things can only be what they are, specifically because God’s very ontology is the source of the laws of logic.

I received an email notification of Whatsisface 4 4’s next comment which read, “Could God have created an irrational creation where square circles are possible?” However, when I went to reply to it, I saw that it had been edited to
You said…”The reason why a circle is round, that is the only way a circle can be, and why you cannot have a square circle is that God created a rational creation, which functions rationally,” You cannot use a rational universe to justify the existence of God unless you show that things could have been different and you could have a square circle. If things are the only way they could be, ie circles being round, then it doesn’t need a God in order for circles to be circles.

Ken Ammi
I received an email notification of your comment and wrote the following reply but then when I went to post it I saw that the system tells me it was edited so, here is what my reply was to your original comment:
I am not big into playing what if gedanken-experiments but the issue is that which we have been discussing: identity. Thus, no: God could not have created an irrational creation where square circles are possible because a square circle would violate the identity of that which is a circle and that which is a square.
Here is the reply to the edited version:
It is extremely easy to show how, on your worldview, things could have been different: since life, the universe and everything result from nothing accidentally causing nothing to explode then the nothing could have not caused the nothing to explode or could have accidentally caused the explosion to result in a multitude of difference results.
Thus, on your worldview anything could have been or not been or been and not been at the same time and in the same relation but on mine things are the only way they could be which is how and why circles are round and in order to this to be an ongoing fact then the mind of God is required to sustain reality as it is.

Whatsisface 4
That you can’t have a square circle is a point of logic. That God can’t create a square circle means He is subject to the laws of logic, He can’t break them, so He cannot be responsible for them. Your second point is assertions only, badly in need of support. For a start, if the universe were natural, it wouldn’t be an accident, but inevitable.

Ken Ammi
Friend, may I remind you that your arguments are baseless since you have no premise upon which to make them thus, you are still beginning with conclusions.
Now, I am not interested in pseudo discussions where you go round and round back to the same issues we already discussed such as that God “is subject to the laws of logic.”
I might argue that I am subject to thoughts, desired, etc. but this does not mean nor imply that they are not a part of me—in fact, the opposite is true which is what I have been arguing.
Again, logic is intrinsic to God as it is a very part of His ontology, His very nature and essence. Thus, when He acts in a logical manner He is acting out His very being.
And He cannot break them (although some would argue that He does such as via miracles) just like I cannot punch a puppy in the face just for fun: it is simply not within me to do that.
That “He can’t break them, so He cannot be responsible for them” is a mere non sequitur of an assertion.
“If the universe were natural” which it is, “it wouldn’t be an accident” so 100% of Atheists are wrong, “but inevitable” which is simply not the case.

ratharos wrote this to Whatsisface 4
For the theist the laws of logic are real intangible things and not mere observations of the physical world. They need that so they can justify their anthropocentric worldview with word games rather than evidence.

ratharos
Friend, speaking for myself: the term “laws of logic” refer to both the actual phenomena (“real intangible things”) and also our “observations of the physical world” whereby we describe them.
For the Atheist the laws of logic are real intangible things so that they believe in impersonal, invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent administrators of the universe—sound familiar?
They need that so they can justify their misanthropic worldview with word games rather than evidence.
Now, how does your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic or ethics and for holding others to these standards?

ratharos
Ken Ammi >the term “laws of logic” refer to both the actual phenomena (“real intangible things”) The actual phenomena is the universe, a very tangible thing. Claims of intangible things are unsupported by evidence. Without evidence you are free to make up any claim to justify your worldview. They exist as neural networks in our physical brain which is ultimately part of the universe. >For the Atheist the laws of logic are real intangible things so that they believe in impersonal, invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent administrators of the universe—sound familiar? Not really, that sounds more like a deist thing, i know many atheists and not one that would claim the laws of logic are real intangible things and that there are invisible administrators of the universe. > misanthropic citation needed, most of us are humanists. >Now, how does your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic or ethics and for holding others to these standards? Define truth. We use the same “laws” of logic you just claim them divine. Ethics is consensus, heavily rooted on the concept of equality and empathy. We hold others to these standards with laws, like any other culture in history. Besides all of this is hiding behind philosophy to in a best case scenario justify the existence of a metaphysical reality, in no way does it prove that the abrahamic god is real, or that the claims of this particular religion are logically consistent, or that we should follow them.

Ken Ammi
Friend, it is very obvious that it is erroneous that “Claims of intangible things are unsupported by evidence” unless you deny having thoughts, or deny the existence of last Tuesday, or of subatomic particles, etc., etc., etc.

The statement “Without evidence you are free to make up any claim to justify your worldview” lacks an elucidation of what would be the problem with lacking evidence and making up any claim to justify our worldviews. You see, it all goes back to the same problem, for you, is that you have no premise upon which to condemn and your worldview simply allows for evicencelessly making up any claim to justify our worldviews.

Now, since “laws of logic” refers to two things then you cannot myopically claim that “They exist as neural networks in our physical brain which is ultimately part of the universe”: logic itself is extrinsic.

Perhaps no Atheist you know thinks that “the laws of logic are real intangible things and that there are invisible administrators of the universe” but that is myopic: perhaps they have never thought of it in those term, perhaps they have not considered the implications of the fact of the existence of existence of logic independent of our minds, etc.

Truth refers to that which is regardless of our opinions (the standard correspondence view of truth) but the question is not the definition but how your worldview provide you a premise for truth and for holding others to the standard of truth?

Likewise, just because you “use the same ‘laws’ of logic” does not mean that you have a premise upon which to do so. So, again, how does your worldview provide you a premise for logic and for holding others to the standard of logic?

I am not asking how, as in “We hold others to these standards with laws, like any other culture in history” but the issue is prior to that: it is about ontology.

Also, if “Ethics is consensus” then Nazism was ethical since the majority of Germans agreed on it.

This has all just been about seeking to discern if you have any premise whatsoever upon which to even engage the issue of the existence of God: if your worldview is accurate (and there is no evidence for it, of course) then what do you care what other temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms think (with “think” referring to neural reactions).

ratharos
As expected a dishonest evasive response. At no point did you explain how YOU can escape epistemic circularity and how your god is not simply another assumption. Moreover you cannot use this argument to justify anything other than the existence of a god, ANY god. Therefore as long as you refuse to discus the actual contents of the bible you cannot make the claim that your god is a better explanation than any other god. And lastly you seem to think we need some objective basis to make “moral” claims? That is so naive. All we have is consensus, subjectivity and relativity. I know that bothers you but the world is not black and white. Don’t respond to me again I am tired of your evasive responses.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you accused me of being dishonest without evidence (you just played mind reader) and you imply condemning dishonesty without a premise.
Digging into fundamental issues before taking the next step is not evasive: it is just that I will not jump through your hoops until you can demonstrate that you have hoops in the first place.
Thus, we can discuss the actual contents of the Bible only after defining terms and setting the stage.
For example, you are committing a styled tu quoque logical fallacy in stating that I at no point explained how I can escape epistemic circularity.
And, if God is just an assumption, so what? (I am asking “So what?” on your worldview).
We do not need an objective basis to make “moral” claims because claims are just claims. We need an objective basis to make “ethical” claims and the ethic itself if absolute, of course.
But you end up utterly discrediting yourself. Like I said, you entire endeavor commenting here (or anywhere) is absurd and you proved it by making the un-evidenced assertion that “All we have is consensus, subjectivity and relativity” which means that since Atheists are a vast minority and theist the vast majority then the consensus is that God exists. But if you really think that, “All we have is…subjectivity and relativity” then every one of your comments are subjective and relative so I can claim that they do not say that which you claim they say.
So let us get to the bottom line from which to begin: since you admit that your worldview provides you no premise for truth, logic, ethics, for adhering to these nor for demanding that others adhere to them then how can you simply jump to demanding that people agree with you?
Friend, you are falling for one of Atheism’s consoling delusions: seeking subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence.

Whatsisface 4
That “logic is intrinsic to God as it is a very part of His ontology, His very nature and essence” is an unclear statement. The laws of logic are intrinsic to me in that I am subject to them and cannot break them. So what do you mean?

Whatsisface 4 wrote this following comment as well
Easily. The Laws of logic are about what can only be the case. Eg, it can only be that a thing is what it is. No further justification is required.

Ken Ammi
Actually, the laws of logic are EXtrinsic to you. You live in their world, in a manner of speaking, and can interact with and adhere to them but they are not intrinsic to you since you are not their source. But to say “The Laws of logic are…” is merely to define the word “logic,” it is not providing a premise for them nor for adhering to them nor for demanding adherence to them.

Whatsisface 4
The statements of the laws of logic reflect the only way things could be. A=A, is the only way things could be. Things can only be what they are. That’s what grounds the law of identity, nothing else is needed for the law of identity to be true.
Could you please simply respond to the points in my previous post? Being…The statements of the laws of logic reflect the only way things could be. A=A, is the only way things could be. Things can only be what they are. That’s what grounds the law of identity, nothing else is needed for the law of identity to be true. [ellipses in original]

Ken Ammi
Friend, on your view there is no way for you to know that “The statements of the laws of logic reflect THE ONLY WAY THINGS COULD BE” since you believe that the way things are is the result of accidents and accidents could have resulted in things being many different ways. You are just making a dogmatheistic statement at that point.
So from the premise of reality being the result of accidents you cannot conclude that “A=A, is the only way things could be.” But I understand why you would be desperate to get me to accept the random bio-chemical reactions which lead you to say that since you recognized that your worldview has a chasm between “is” and “ought.”
Thus, of course something else is “needed for the law of identity to be true” that which caused it to be so: you have just decided that it is so by accident—which, again, means that it could have been otherwise.
And yet, we are still left with another chasm in your worldview, another “is” “ought” problem: let us say that I agree that the laws of logic reflect the only way things could be. My reply, on your worldview, would be “So what?” You then have to subjectively invent an imperative as to why I should care about that, why I should adhere to the laws of logic and you will run into your worldview’s problem which is that the most important thing in life is survival and reproduction (for some unknown reason) and if I can survive and reproduce whilst being utterly deluded, not being logical, etc., then it does not matter.

Whatsisface 4
You said…”Friend, on your view there is no way for you to know that “The statements of the laws of logic reflect THE ONLY WAY THINGS COULD BE” since you believe that the way things are is the result of accidents and accidents could have resulted in things being many different ways”. We’ve been through this before. I do not think the way things are is the results of accidents. If the universe is natural, it could only act according to it’s properties , so as it’s here, it’s a result of it’s properties which means it’s not an accident. Even so, that something is the result of an accident doesn’t stop it from being what it is.

Ken Ammi
I am unsure why you are avoiding inconvenient truths: you may not like the term “accidents” but no matter what words you use, your worldview forces you to adhere to the concept that things, reality, the universe, is the way it is just because it just happens to have happened that way.
Thus, “it could only act according to it’s properties” because it just happens to have happened that way.
But that “it’s a result of it’s properties” is incoherent, it is anachronistic since it cannot be the result of that which it contains, that of which it consist: in other words, its properties would have had to preexist it in order to what it “result” from it.
And no, “that something is the result of an accident doesn’t stop it from being what it is” but the issue is not what it “is” but why it is and your worldview will only allow you to think that it is all by whatever word you want to use instead of accident.
You simply cannot get away from that, on your worldview, and can only imagine that you want to somehow get away from it because you recognize how absurd it is. So, best bet is to reject your worldview since it fails before it even begins.

Whatsisface 4
You said…”And no, “that something is the result of an accident doesn’t stop it from being what it is” but the issue is not what it “is” but why it is and your worldview will only allow you to think that it is all by whatever word you want to use instead of accident”. Huh? We were discussing the Laws of Logic, the Law of Identity in particular.

Ken Ammi
Friend, this is getting much too unnecessary. When something results from an uncaused accident for unintended results in a blind and unguided manner then anything can result from it.
Your worldview can only tell you what “is” and that, only if you can even trust your cognitive abilities—which, as per your worldview, also results from uncaused accidents for unintended results in blind and unguided manners.
So, you can say, “Hey everybody, I know not how or why but logic is.” Fine, but you cannot justifiably way, “Ergo, you must be logical or be termed ‘wrong’,” etc.

Whatsisface 4
As I said before, if the universe were natural, then it can’t be an accident. As it has regularities that we call laws then what results from it is not unguided in the sense of being random, and what is possible within it is restricted and guided by it’s properties. Logic describes the only way things can be, which means it’s not contingent. No God necessary.
That’s a lot of assertion with no explanation. I’ve already said that logic describes the only way things can be, which means it’s not contingent, so no God is needed to justify it. You have yet to show how logic doesn’t describe the only way things can be.

Ken Ammi
As I said before, the universe is natural, then it was not an accident but was creatively designed. On my worldview yes, “As it has regularities that we call laws then what results from it is not unguided in the sense of being random, and what is possible within it is restricted and guided by its properties.” But on your worldview, you are merely asserting that it has regularities by accident.
When you say “Logic describes the only way things can be” you are getting ahead of yourself, you are beginning with a conclusion: you are in the middle of the game telling me about the rules of the game. I am talking about how the game came to be conceived in the first place, how its rules were put in place, etc.
Thus, “Logic describes the only way things can be” only after the fact that they now exist. But on your worldview, since the universe results from an accident that happened to nothing or something then there may not have been any such thing as logic.
Again, you are not forcing your worldview to provide you fundamental premised, I know that it cannot do so, so you are just saying “is” therefore, “No God necessary” which is illegitimate.
As for “how logic doesn’t describe the only way things can be” you have missed the point time and again (and again).

Whatsisface 4
The laws of logic are descriptions of the only way things can be. No God needed.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you are handily confirming that Atheism is your worldview. Your thinking is clearly infected by it. Let us simplify this you are not claiming that “The laws of logic are descriptions” of the way things are claiming that they “are descriptions of the only way things can be.” But how (not to mention why) is the only way things can be, the only way things can be?

Whatsisface 4
How can anything be other than what it is? That A=A is the only way things can be.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you are still failing to traverse the “is” vs. “ought” divide since even if “A=A” and even if this “is the only way things can be” then that is merely “is” and does not get you to “ought.”
Also, “How can anything be other than what it is? That A=A is the only way things can be” quite simply, as I have noted time and again, it could have been other than what it is, it could have been that A does not =A if the nothing that you believe (by “faith”) caused nothing (or an eternal something) to explode resulted in a different reality.

Whatsisface 4
Huh? You are not making sense with your “ought” as far as the Law Of Identity is concerned. I don’t believe that nothing caused nothing, so strawman on your part there.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you cannot take me out of context by misquoting me—to myself. I did not claim that you believe that “nothing caused nothing” to it is not a strawman. What I actually wrote is, “nothing that you believe (by “faith”) caused nothing (or an eternal something).” And, by the way, if you do not “believe that nothing caused nothing” then that would be a good time to elucidate what you do believe. But as for the “ought” which your worldview fails to provide you: you have hit that brick wall again since you are demanding that I adhere to truth, logic and ethics without a premise which means that you cannot demand any such thing. Just because it is probably possible that truth, logic and ethics exist on your worldview does not bridge the gap into that therefore, we must adhere to them as an imperative.

Whatsisface 4
I don’t know why there is something rather than nothing, but that doesn’t mean God is the reason. You can try not adhering to logic, but you will look foolish. You don’t have to adhere to ethics, but if you go against them, hopefully, you will be locked up.

Ken Ammi
So, in other words, since Atheism is your worldview then nothing is a result of God’s actions because well, because you are an Atheist (and Atheism is thought restricting).
Now, I asked about your worldviews premise for truth, logic and ethics and the reply is, clearly, that truth, logic and ethics are the result of accidents.
I also asked how your worldview provides you a premise to adhere to them, as an imperative, and the reply is, clearly, that it does not: the “is” vs. “ought” problem that you cannot overcome.
And this is evidence in that I also asked about your worldview’s premise for demoing that others adhere to truth, logic and ethics and you prove that you cannot overcome the “is” vs. “ought” problem when:
1. You ignore the issue of truth.
2. You merely assert “You can try not adhering to logic, but you will look foolish”: which presupposes logic and presupposes that I will look foolish but that would be for not adhering to the result of accidents and you also assert that looking foolish may be something to be avoided but you do not state why.
3. You admit that on your worldview I “don’t have to adhere to ethics” and that if I do “hopefully, you will be locked up” but this is missing many points such as that what ethics? On your worldview I could have mass murdered Jews, et al., in Nazi Germany since that was their “ethic,” but if I was in the US I could have killed Nazi’s since that was our “ethic” and I could mass murder human babies since that too in our “ethic.”
Friend, your worldview fails before it even begins and leads you to such absurdities.

And that was all folks, as no one replied.

See my various books here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Give Timothy Alberino 10 points for hitting all of the keyword with a title like “: Did ALIENS Cause the NEPHILIM Giants to RETURN After The FLOOD?”: aliens, Nephilim, giants, the flood—it’s all under the big top!

Well, that was the title to a Youtube video to which I commented:

No, aliens did not cause post-flood Nephilim. And we can know this because there is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim.

Also, Timothy might have a “theory” and a “feeling” about eating dust and crawling on bellies but the Bible tells us exactly what it means by it—it is symbolic of being humbled. Even today we still say things like the Queen song, “Another one bites the dust.”

Isaiah 65 notes that “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.”

Psalm 72:9 “They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.”

Micah 7:17 “They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.”

Lamentations 3 “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. He sitteth alone and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him” and the key phrase, “He putteth his mouth in the dust; if so be there may be hope.”

Deuteronomy 32:24 states, “They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.”

Moreover, the Bible references throwing dust in the air as a sign of mouring, wheeping and repenting which people also did by sitting in dust an ashes (see Job 42:6 and Acts 22:23 for examples).

And there are a lot more texts that make this clear.

Someone going by the name “Z&N F & S & J” replied:

How, then, do you explain the resends of giants in the land AFTER the Flood, then? I’m just genuinely curious as to your position because the Bible specifically tells us that there were giants on the earth before the Flood as well as after the Flood…

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Well friend, part of the problem is beginning with a presupposition that Nephilim and “giants” (whatever that means) have some relation. We are never given a physical description of Nephilim—not even of their size.

The term “giant(s)” is generic in that it only means taller than average and biblical times Hebrew males averaged 5.5 ft. (so women averaged less), the LXX’s “gigantes” means earth-born and “giant(s)” is used to translate both Nephilim and Rephaim so it only causes confusion.

Thus, there is no reason to think that post-flood tall, very tall, or Rephaim have anything to do with Nephilim—any more than taller than average people in the NBA have anything to do with Nephilim.

Now, please note very carefully that you stated, “Bible specifically tells us that there were giants on the earth before the Flood as well as after the Flood.” Yet, the Bible does not stated this: I am just pointing out that “before the Flood as well as after the Flood” is an interpretive assertion and not what the text actually states.

We are told that Nephilim (not “giants”) were on the earth “in those days” and “also after that” which you take to be references to the flood. However, the text twice tell us when “those days” were: v. 1, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” and v. 4, “in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.”

Thus, “those days” could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children. Yet, whenever it was, the fact is that those were the days and so after that simply means after that but still all pre-flood. And taking them both as pre-flood also works better with the immediate and greater context.

Z&N F & S & J:

Ken Ammi you are incorrect about what you said to the commenter above. You stated that “We are told [in Genesis] that Nephilim (not “giants”) were on the Earth “in those days” and “also after that”…”

When Genesis Clearly states…

▪Genesis 6:4 (KJV)▪

4 There were GIANTS in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I know the basis of the conversation was whether or not it meant before or after the Flood though. Which you are right, it’s not clear what “in those days, and after that” means.

As for Giants being present after the Flood, there is Goliath about 10ft, King Og of Bashan 12-15ft, then you have the Giants in the land of Canaan who made Caleb, Joshua and the other spys appear as though they were grasshoppers compared to these Giants. Which is why the Israelites were too afraid to try to take the city(s) which was direct disobedience to God and was the reason they were forced to wander 40 years in the wilderness and every adult would die before seeing the Promised Land besides Caleb & Joshua.

▪Numbers 13:32 & 33 (KJV)▪

32 And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. 33 There we saw the giants [Nephilim] (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

And the whole reason why the Israelites were to kill these tribes, sometimes every man woman and child, is because they were of these Hybrid Nephilim Bloodlines.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, I noted that you are claiming that the text states “giants” only because the one translation you are reading in English has “giants.” Here is the text in various English translations: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%2006%3A04

The original Hebrew does not refer to them as giants and does not described them as such: they Nephilim—nĕphiyl נָפִיל to be exact. Gen 6 does not provide a physical description.

So then the problem is that since you are reading the word “giants” into Genesis 6, you think that anyone post-flood who is tall must be a Nephilim or related to Nephilim. But even if there were post-flood Nephilim that still would not mean that any and all tall people are Nephilim or related to them.

There is no indication that Goliath was Nephilim, he was a Repha (who was somewhere between less than 7 ft. to less than 10 ft. depending on Greek vs. Hebrew manuscripts.

You cannot tell me how tall Og was since the Bible does not tell us: you are referring to the size of his bed, not his personal size and, in any case, he was also not Nephilim but Rephaim.

You cannot just change words just to weave a tall tale.

Lastly, the only indication that any tall person post-flood was Nephilim or related to them is Num 13:33 but note what it states, just as you quoted it, “they gave…a bad report of the land” so why would you believe a bad report?

The way the text plays out is that they report good things about the land, its fruit, etc.

They then show some fear due to the strength of the people and cities (recall that these were wilderness dwellers unused to confronting fortified cities).

Caleb chimes in to encourage the people.

Only at this point are we told that they present a bad or evil report and it is only within this bed/evil report that they claim, for the first time (and for the only time in the Bible) that there were post-flood Nephilim, that the Anakim are related to Nephilim and how tall the Nephilim were (and, by the way, if you believe them then you just also figured out how tall God is: see the reference to grasshoppers in Isaiah 40:22).

Moreover, Moses and Caleb both affirm that Anakim were in the land but say nothing about Nephilim and God Himself affirms the Amalekites and Canaanites were in the land but says nothing about Nephilim.

You should not believe disloyal/unfaithful spies who present a bad/evil report for which they were rebuked, you should believe Moses, Caleb and God.

Lastly, that the Israelites killed the tribes has to do with Hybrid Nephilim Bloodlines is not biblical. They did so because God had judge those tribes (and gave them centuries to repent): http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/was-israelite-intermarriage-forbidden-due-post-flood-nephilim

Becky Watt commented:

Ken Ammi You seem to have forgotten about Goliath and King OG !!!!!

Ken Ammi:

I am not sure what you mean: Goliath and Og are not Nephilim, they are Rephaim. Also, you are assuming that being tall means being Nephilim or related to Nephilim which is something that is not logical nor theo-logical.

Chris Fisher commented:

I don’t understand how there can’t be post-flood Nephilim considering that there are Nephilim currently in the world as we speak. And last I checked this current time was post-flood.

Ken Ammi:

Well, my point is that the Bible knows nothing of post-flood Nephilim. But if “there are Nephilim currently in the world as we speak” then where is that?

Chris Fisher:

Ken Ammi as you have shown yourself too lazy to even begin researching this stuff on your own, why most people are ignorant because they only will ever know what people tell them or show them, look up the story of the giant of Kandahar, read Buffalo Bill Cody’s autobiography where the Pawnee Indians tell him about the Giants so big running across the plains they could scoop up Buffalo and tear off legs and eat as they run. Along with the fact that the Indian palm up hand sign and greeting was very purposeful in the case they wanted to count the fingers on the hand as the Nephilim have six fingers on each hand and not five. Only the part of the greeting where they say how or how white man was made up as a Hollywood invention. I’m not going to waste anymore time embarrassing you. I now expect you to put on big boy pants and go find some of these things on your own. Don’t ever offer your opinion again you [******] garbage heap. Facts are out there and the only thing that is relevant is truth. Your opinion is even less important than your bowel movement.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, are you a Christian? I am going to guess “No” because you are astonishingly filled with hatred, angry, malicious, and foul.

You seem to have confused my asking you to back your own claims with me not wanting to do research. I asked you to provided evidence because my research concluded that there is none.

But if you think that I am too lazy to even begin researching this stuff on my own then please read these articles of mine, just for starters: “Grading the giant human skeleton chart”: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/grading-giant-human-skeleton-chart and “Adrienne Mayor “The First Fossil Hunters” – book review”: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/adrienne-mayor-%E2%80%9C-first-fossil-hunters%E2%80%9D-book-review and “Giant skeleton reports in old newspapers”: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/giant-skeleton-reports-old-newspapers and “Did the Supreme Court prove that the Smithsonian destroyed giant skeletons”: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/did-supreme-court-prove-smithsonian-destroyed-giant-skeletons

So you will see that I already looked up and wrote about the supposed “giant of Kandahar.”

It is simply false that “Nephilim have six fingers on each hand” so your story about Indians fails.

Also, we have no indication whatsoever that Nephilim were any taller than average so you cannot simply conclude that when Buffalo Bill Cody or the Pawnee Indians talk about “Giants” then tall means Nephilim—that is a non sequitur.

You claimed “there are Nephilim currently in the world as we speak,” I asked “then where is that?” and you failed.

Chris Fisher:

Ken Ammi by the way, don’t ever correct me on Native American lore. I’ll tell you what my ancestors did and why. No matter if u want to discount someone’s account of face to face conversations. I can understand questioning that. But you don’t get to pretend you read something online and it outweighs centuries of culture and carefully protected history. NOT the progressive lies historians organized after WW2. Untainted, undiluted history not found or taught in your government indoctrination program you called high school. I can’t believe you had the nerve to send links to Doucheseeker. OR was it Douchefinder? Hahahahahaha. As if it matters what the name of disinformation sites are.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you should be open to be corrected on any point on which you are mistaken. Just because I am Jewish does not mean that I am omniscient when it comes to all things Judaism.

Besides, the only thing I stated that referenced “Native American lore” is “Also, we have no indication whatsoever that Nephilim were any taller than average so you cannot simply conclude that when Buffalo Bill Cody or the Pawnee Indians talk about ‘Giants’ then tall means Nephilim—that is a non sequitur” which is something you ignored.

You see, I did not “discount someone’s account of face to face conversations” but only that whatever they saw, it was not Nephilim.

Now, to what are you referring to when you refer to “Doucheseeker. OR was it Douchefinder? Hahahahahaha” (besides that you are being disgusting)?

Also, you refer to the site as “disinformation” which is a very, very serious slander so: where is your evidence?

And, did you read those articles or are you purposefully refusing to have your views challenged by facts?

Chris Fisher:

Ken Ammi make no mistake, everyone was well aware of your limitations. Practice What You Preach first, then we’ll see how this goes.

Ken Ammi:

Are you a Christian?

Such over the top emotive reactions as not uncommon to post-flood Nephilim believers, by the way, and that ended the discussion as no more replies where forthcoming.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The following discussion ensued due to the video When atheists slam Genesis without reading it! and see the follow-up Discussing Incest in the Bible.
Nadav Kravitz:

Oh so instead of mother-son incest, it was brother-sister incest.

Ken Ammi:

Are either of those an issue for you and if so how and why?

Jonatan D:

It is an issue for a species. Inbreeding leads to defects and then extinction. It is also an issue for Christians, who forbid incest.

Ken Ammi:

Well, the theory is starting the human race with perfect genetics that are saturated with genetic diversity that would allow for variation. So you must reject a common ancestor then, right?
So the genetics are not a problem until they become a problem and such close marriages are no longer allowed. Thus, to say “Christians…forbid incest” is ignoring Jews and also anachronistic. Why does any of this matter on your worldview anyhow?

Jonatan D:

2 people can only carry the genes of 2 people, the perfection theory is made up by apologists. There is also no trace of a global flood and the bottleneck it would have caused. A common ancestor is just a species from which other species evolved. So god’s rules aren’t absolute, they depend on a context which changes. Not all rules are relevant today.

Ken Ammi:

“the perfection theory is” implied by the text and by genetics.
Ultimately, it is not just about “A common ancestor…a species from which other species evolved” from. This is about “A,” as in singular common ancestor from which ALL species evolved so you just compounded genetic problems multitudinously since now you have all living organisms being related.
I’d say that not all of “millennia.”

Jonatan D:

Geneticists don’t support that, according to them our dna is similar to that of chimps and some humans have neanthertal dna. A common ancestor creature would be a bacteria, the kind of thing that can’t be inbreed.

Ken Ammi:

I can’t even imagine how/why any of this matters on Atheism. For example, you assert, “Geneticists don’t support that” but that’s a mere jump to a conclusion since you don’t bother telling me why we should be concerned about what geneticists support or don’t support.
But of course “‘the perfection theory is’ implied by the text and by genetics” since we are accumulating deleterious mutations, etc.
Why would our DNA not be similar to that of chimps? Also, Neanderthals were people so what of it?
If our “common ancestor…can’t be inbreed” then, pray tell, how is it our common ancestor? With what did our “common ancestor” breed?

Jonatan D:

By showing those biblical mistakes it can be made clear that it isn’t divinely inspired. There is also the unproven flood, plants created before the sun, the problem of evil, free will doesn’t exist, etc.
If geneticists don’t support an unscientific hypothesis like perfection, then there is no reason take it seriously. The bible never mentions genetic code, so apologists fill those gaps. Mutations appear over time, but if they are harmful, mutated organisms die more often. The problem solves itself.
If humans were created and perfect, there is no reason for their genome to be constrained to be similar to that of other animals. Its as if they evolved. Common ancestry doesn’t mean just 1 ancestor. We all share ancestors, but mutation and selection kept the gene pool wide enough at all times. Therefore our common ancestors aren’t like family to us or each other genetically.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you don’t seem to grasp that you are in a bottomless pit of subjective assertions based on hidden assumptions that are not in keeping with your worldview.
See, you say, “By showing those biblical mistakes it can be made clear that it isn’t divinely inspired” but those are not mistakes and your hidden assumptions are that we must adhere to logic, that being illogical denotes lack of inspiration, etc. You did not argue your way to those but began with them as mere assertions.
You say, “unproven flood” based on a hidden assumption that it must be proved if true but you don’t bother saying why, you merely assert.
“plants created before the sun”: what of it?
“the problem of evil”: what problem, what evil, what of Atheism’s problems of evils?
“free will doesn’t exist”: so you are not actually arguing since there is no actual you?
“If geneticists don’t support an unscientific hypothesis like perfection, then there is no reason take it seriously”: another jumped to conclusion that you merely assert.
“Mutations appear over time”: which leads to the conclusion that we are experiencing deleterious effects that are making things worse (the biblical view), not better (the Atheist evolutionary view).
“If humans were created and perfect, there is no reason for their genome to be constrained to be similar to that of other animals”: this is a simple non-sequitur. Similar genomes denote similar designer.
“Its as if they evolved”: sure, given certain definitions of “evolved.”
“Common ancestry doesn’t mean just 1 ancestor”: as of when, have you ever seen an Atheist evolution alleged chart of supposed life?
“We all share ancestors”: so you assert multiple life-from-accidents scenarios? Do you realize that you just multipled down on the mathematical impossibility of it even happening once—much less however many times you imagine it did?
In short, on Atheism truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand others adhere to it. That pretty much discredits everything you’ve said so how about just deal with this one issue since it effects any others you may raise?

Jonatan D:

Your assertions are not any more objective than mine. Im just saying the case of genetics, plants and the flood, the scientific concensus is not on the side of the bible. But even if you ignore that, there is no reason to believe in the biblical narrative over any other that can be made up. Life can be an accident in a large enough universe, however unlikely you claim it is. Also, who says some mutations can’t be beneficial and spread?
Since you don’t trust mainstream science, i will show you god doesn’t make sense. If god is as good as claimed, he wouldn’t have created beings he knew will be evil. Atheism doesn’t claim there is a god, so it doesn’t have to account for evil. Free will doesn’t make sense there is always some rule that causes one choice, otherwise why not another? It would be illogical for it to be free. You are right that there is no imperative to find truth, other than that some of it is useful. Either we can’t find it and both us may be deluded or we can, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you are right.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, a factoid seems to have escaped your notice (not that adhering to facts is a universal imperative on Atheism) since if my assertions are not any more objective than yours then, guess what, it’s all pure subjectivism so what’s the point of your Atheist missionary endeavors? By the way, you are asserting that its objective that my assertions are not any more objective than yours so you made a bed but refuse to sleep in it (not that adhering to consistency is a universal imperative on Atheism).
I’ve no idea what you mean by that in “the case of genetics, plants and the flood, the scientific concensus is not on the side of the bible” but what does that matter in a subjectivist universe—where’s that bed of yours?
Indeed, on your view the universe and so all it contains, including life, are accidental and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to truth since, of course, truth is accidental and you seem to understand this which is why you assert that subjectivism is objectively true—which his as incoherent as it sounds, of course (not that being coherent is a universal imperative on Atheism).
I’m not aware of anyone who ever claimed, “some mutations can’t be beneficial and spread” but study the statistics of it from mainstream science: it will shows you that they are a statistical minority and can’t overcome genetic entropy.
Then you turn into Atheist theologian by demanding what God would or would not do. But, of course, that’s just your subjective opinion, right? You don’t want to go to bed do you?
But when you say you “doesn’t have to account for evil” you pretend as if rejecting God, for subjective reasons (excuses), makes evil go away. Well, maybe you’re on to something since Atheistic evolution actually turns evil into good since evil (pain, suffering, death, etc.) benefit evolution. Thus, evil, pain, suffering, death, etc. are some of the best reasons for rejecting Atheism.
So you first objectively affirm subjectivism and then deny free will so how could you possibly complain about people believing in un-true things when they have to free will to choose otherwise—and there’s no universal imperative to believe in accidental truth anyhow.
Also, what does or “doesn’t make sense” to you is not a standard but is merely, guess what, pure subjectivism.
You refer to that which you subjectively consider “illogical” but on your view logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, not to demand that others adhere to it either.
And you admit this, “there is no imperative to find truth” but only pure subjective pragmatism, “other than that some of it is useful.”
So you end up agreeing with me and so you might as well stop arguing against Christians.
Yet, on the Christian worldview truth is, truth is purposeful, truth is knowable, there is an imperative to adhere to it, and it personified—since Jesus said, “I am the truth.”
And, as I have shown you, you make claims but realize that you can’t live by them. You claim, “we can’t find it” but speak as if you have which shows that something somewhere within you (perhaps at the soul level) you realize that absolute truth exists, it is knowable, and you long for it.

Jonatan D:

Why would your claims not being necessarily objective makes all mine subjective? Is the claim like 1+1 equals 2 subjective because if there is no imperative for truth? I think we agree that we can find objective truths. But in world where there is no universal imperative to find truth it’s just something that can be useful, it isn’t forbidden. Why would it require god?
If entropy is such a problem i wonder why fast breeding species are doing fine and how new breeds of crops appeared during history. Beneficial mutations are less common, but it is clear selection isn’t beign overwhelmed. There is also sexual reproduction to spread multiple useful mutations at once. Somehow i think you got the numbers you wanted or missed something. After all you want to defend the conclusion that there is fundamental designer that creates life for arbitrary reasons. How likely was it that god would want to create life?
Evil is a subjective classification. Theists justify their classifications using god. God says some things are evil because they are evil. Circular logic. There is no reason for god to follow a moral code over another, therefore he doesn’t grant them any objectivity.
An absolute truth doesn’t mean there is being enforcing it, free will, objective morals and creation. That is just baggage you add to it. Does 1+1 need god to be true?

Ken Ammi:

Well, on your worldview it is accidental that 1+1 equals 2. So, “Does 1+1 need god to be true?” perhaps not but if there is no God and 1+1=2 then it’s accidental. As it has been said: Atheists can count, but they can’t account for counting.
Yes, “we agree that we can find objective truths” but on your worldview objective truths are accidental, as is our ability to find them, there’s no universal imperative to do adhere to objective truth, nor to expect others to adhere to it.
Thus, a view that objective truth purposeful, that our ability to find it is purposeful, that adhering to it is a universal imperative, and others also ought to it what requires God.
Entropy is a universal problem, by definition, even if there are temporary upswings: the trends is that the death rate is one per organism.
When you refer to “Beneficial mutations” you’re sneaking in the concept of beneficial artificially since on your view, it’s subjective to us whether something is beneficial or not since you’d base that on organisms’ ability to survive but on your worldview the survival instinct is accidental—as is life itself.
Why would I “defend the conclusion that there is fundamental designer that creates life for arbitrary reasons”?
It is very likely that God would want to create life since 1) He did so and 2) He is an eternally relational being and so sought to share that relational character of His.
Glad you admit, “Evil is a subjective classification” which essentially mean that you’ve disqualified yourself from ever actually condemning it—and I don’t mean you just saying stuff, I mean your worldview provides you no premise upon which to actually, absolutely, cogently, viably, etc. condemn it.
God says some things are evil because they violate His relational and beneficent nature.
You assert, “Circular logic” but don’t say what would be wrong with that since on your worldview, here we go again, logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to do adhere to it, nor to expect others to adhere to it.
Thus, that’s is the “reason for god to follow a moral code over another” (even though He does not exactly “follow a moral code” but a styled “follow a moral code” is part of His ontology).
So, perhaps “An absolute truth doesn’t mean there is begin enforcing it” but it would then be accidental and with no universal imperative to adhere to it.

Jonatan D:

So without god 1+1 can be 3? That doesn’t even make sense. Logic isn’t something that can be whimsically brought into being. It would be illogical. There is no purpose behind it other than what we make up.
Survival instinct is accidental, but it stays for obvious reasons. Life being an accident is no problem, as it just a configuration of matter. The universe offers enough tries and my be conductive to life. If that seems to much of a coincidence, then a multiverse would solve it. That life means god inevitably creates life, also applies to the universe.
Evil being subjective won’t stop from making judgments, just like i will judge food even though it being better is just an opinion.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, why would you ask “So without god 1+1 can be 3?” when I noted, “on your worldview it is accidental that 1+1 equals 2. So, ‘Does 1+1 need god to be true?’ perhaps not but if there is no God and 1+1=2 then it’s accidental. As it has been said: Atheists can count, but they can’t account for counting”?
You asked a very nuanced question, even if you didn’t realize it, so let’s simplifying it and say that God does not exist, and the universe was accidented into being as it now is. Now, without God 1+1 cannot really be 3 but there’d be no universal imperative to adhere to accidental math and/or to accidental truth/reality/facts so that if anyone claimed that 1+1 can be 3 all anyone could say is that such is not the case but, hey, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to accidental math and/or to accidental truth/reality/facts so have fun.
You say “That doesn’t even make sense” but what subjectively doesn’t make sense to you is not a standard.
But then you appeal to logic but, guess what, on your worldview logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it. Thus, in our fantasy Atheist universe you would say, “It would be illogical but, hey, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to accidental logic and/or to accidental truth/reality/facts so have fun.”
To what were you referring by “There is no purpose behind it other than what we make up”: to logic?
At least you admit that “Survival instinct is accidental” as is adhering to it, of course, which is also subjectively optional with those, like us, of a higher intellect—biologically speaking.
You also admit “Life being an accident” so that pretty much collapses ethics.
By multiverse do you mean infinite places wherein anything and everything happens?
“That life means god inevitably creates life, also applies to the universe” indeed!
Unsure what you mean by your last sentence.

Jonatan D:

In my worldview logic isn’t accidental because there is no chance of logic not being obeyed. That logical “imperative” can be called “god”. There is just no reason for ethics and dogma to be added to it. What is left is reality without purpose. That doesn’t stop us from treating purpose and ethics as if they were true. If this universe seems too special, there is no known reason there couldn’t be others. There all possibilities we don’t have access to would exist. The last sentence was about morality being subjective, but that what we believe is moral will be enforced anyways.

Ken Ammi:

So then, on your worldview when I believe in God’s existence I’m not being illogical since “there is no chance of logic not being obeyed”—cool!
Yes, on your worldview logic is accidental because it was not created, was not designed, was not meant to be, is not the result of a goal-oriented plan, etc., etc., etc.
But see, when you say “there is no chance of logic not being obeyed” you are dealing with logic once it is already here (epistemology) but I’m referring to how it got there in the first place (ontology).
Unsure what you mean by that “That logical ‘imperative’ can be called ‘god’” since I thought your whole point was to deny God’s existence.
Well said, Atheism implies, “reality without purpose” which is why you promulgate delusion, “treating purpose and ethics as if they were true,” wow! This is actually about one of Atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective purpose in an objectively purposeless existence.
Now, I base my views on what we know, you seem to want to base yours on what we don’t know “there is no known reason there couldn’t be others” which is why I’ve called the multiverse the Atheists’ paranormal realm.
But since “There all possibilities we don’t have access to would exist” then you just proved God’s existence, thanks!
Morality (the mores) is subjective, ethics (the ethos) is what’s absolute.

Jonatan D:

On your worldview god is accidental because he was no created, was not designed, was not meant to be, is not the result of a goal oriented plan, etc. God is not a solution to why there is something rather than nothing. When i say logic is “god” i mean that it is the necessary existence theists search for, without the baggage of religion. If you think someone has an objective purpose and morals, tell me who has them and why we should care about those over our own. The multiverse wouldn’t be incompatible with logic or math, therefore it wouldn’t be supernatural. Things like the theistic god can’t be there because things exist by default and there is no free will.

Ken Ammi:

Sounds like a tu quoque fallacy (not that logical fallacies are a problem on Atheism).
Yet, you are sidestepping the issue which is that you are appealing to a feature of the universe, namely logic, which on your worldview is accidental. On my worldview logic is not accident.
On yours, our ability to discern it is also accidental. Not so on mine.
On yours, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it. Not so on mine.
On yours, there’s no universal imperative to demand or expect others to adhere to it. Not so on mine.
Thus, your worship of logic is just a subjective personal preference (based on hidden assumptions).
As a “philosophically necessary being,” God exists by necessity and by definition but on your worldview, logic is an accidental byproduct of an accident.
Objective purpose comes about due to us having been created in God’s image. Objective morals is a tricky term in terms of semantics (I’d rather go with “ethics” or “the ethos”) but there are certain “morals” that are universal.
But you provide evidence that Atheists can only ever be consistently inconsistent since if you actually incorporated your assertions then that would result in you not arguing with people (accidentally existing apes, on your worldview) about purpose (such as what they believe and how they spend their time) or morals (how the comport themselves, including the claims they make).
By definition, the multiverse implies that at least one of those universes are incompatible with logic or math and besides, it’s a non sequitur (not that it matters on Atheism) to conclude that the multiverse wouldn’t be supernatural since it wouldn’t be incompatible with logic or math. But you are wanting to abscond from this reality by appealing to fantasy ones (not that it matters on Atheism) such as when you invent the assertion that “Things like the theistic god can’t be there because things exist by default and there is no free will” as if you have such full knowledge of the multiverse.

And that, as they say, was that since no more replies where forthcoming.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The following discussion took place due to my video Example of why John Loftus is Atheism’s weird creepy drunken uncle, when all segments are posted you will be able to find them all here.

A certain Tom Paine commented
If you hypothetically wind time backwards, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you would have ever decreasing entropy. Eventually you would reach a minimum entropy condition, that is, the “singularity.” Since you cannot have any lower entropy state, then this theoretically is a limit to the regression of time in the past. This points to the possibility of the universe having a temporally beginning as a matter of physical necessity.
Philosophically, if we accept the logical impossibility of actual infinities and infinite regress, then the universe would also have a temporal beginning as a matter of logical necessity. Further, the impossibility of infinite regress suggests that it is logically necessary that an uncaused cause exists. Given all of this I would posit that given what we know about the universe, the most reasonable candidate for the uncaused cause is the physical singularity itself and there is no more necessity for a naturalist to give any further explanation as to where this uncaused cause originated from or why it exists than there is for a theist to explain where God came from or why God exists.
This naturalistic hypothesis has an advantage over the theistic hypothesis (Supernatural agent as uncaused cause) in that it it is more parsimonious. Occam’s razor suggests not multiplying entities or increasing the complexity of explanations beyond need. It makes little sense to posit an unknown and mysterious supernatural agent in order to explain the existence of a known entity such as the physical universe even if the nature of the universe itself is admittedly still quite mysterious. Note: This is not saying the universe popped into being from nothing, because there was no time prior to the temporal beginning of the universe at which the universe did not exist. There was no time at which nothing existed in order for anything to pop out of it.
Given all that, this belief is obviously more reasonable than the belief that the universe began to exist five minutes ago with the appearance of being billions of years old. The former hypothesis is based reasonably on the extrapolation of time back to a minimum entropy state of the universe that would reasonably represent the initial condition of the universe, since according to the 2nd law of thermo dynamics we can infer that no earlier point in time could possibly exist. In other words there is good reason to think the universe would have, perhaps necessarily began in that way. There is no good reason to think the universe would have begun in the latter manner.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Admirable attempt but you did run ruff shot over some points and moved the goalpost as well.
Parsimony is something quite subjective when it comes to such abstract considerations for example, you note to “not multiplying entities or increasing the complexity of explanations BEYOND NEED” but you are assuming that the singularity is the uncaused first eternal cause which therefore, requires nothing beyond it.
You say “This is not saying the universe popped into being from nothing” but that is exactly what Big Bang cosmogony is premised upon.
Now, even if the singularity is the uncaused first eternal cause: does eternal stasis suddenly accidentally result in a fine tuned universe?
Since, on your view, the singularity is itself the uncaused cause then “the most reasonable candidate for the uncaused cause” cannot be “the physical singularity itself” since in order to cause itself if would have to preexist its own existence.
You then shift to “the physical universe” by noting, “It makes little sense to posit an unknown and mysterious supernatural agent,” then why does it make sense to posit an unknown and mysterious agent that is also supernatural, yet non-personal which I think is that which you seek in all of this, since it preexisted the natural: the universe.
But is this supernatural agent unknown and mysterious? If I may, we know now finally know that the universe is a time, space, matter continuum. The Bible’s very first statement is “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Now, read it again thusly, “In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]” so that in one single sentence, we already have a basic cosmology.
Now again, “In the beginning, God [a preexisting being] created [volitionally acted out a plan] the heavens and the earth” so we have a basic theology: the universe’s creator is personal and mind-full.
Again, “In the beginning, God [so being beyond/outside of/transcendent of time: God is timeless or eternal] created [possibly requiring omnipotence and omniscience] the heavens [so God is not subject to locality: omnipresent] and the earth [so God is not subject to physicality: is spirit].”
So, even restricting ourselves to one single sentence, we find out quite a bit about a supposedly unknown and mysterious being who turns out to be personal, intelligent, omnipresent, perhaps omnipotent and omniscient, is not subject to the continuum, etc.

Tom Paine
Well, I might just return your compliment, nice attempt, but you missed an important point. I am NOT saying the universe popped into being out of nothing, because that implies a time before which the universe existed when it did not exist, but that is precluded in my hypothesis. Not only is there no time before the beginning of the universe when it did not exist, it may very well be both logically and physically impossible that there was. So, this is not saying there (a time when) there was nothing and then pop the universe comes into being from nothing. Neither is it saying the universe created itself. There’s simply nothing causally prior to the first cause/uncaused cause. That’s implied by the name and unless there is some reason to think otherwise, then the physical singularity itself because we actually know that must have existed is a more parsimonious candidate for the first cause. This is true no matter how unlikely it might seem that the initial conditions should be such as to bring forth sentient life. However whatever the first cause is, whether it’s personal or impersonal, divine or simply the physical universe in its initial condition, it is entitled to have whatever properties it had with no need for further explanation. As to Bible I’m don’t doubt that the human authors who wrote it were aware of time, space and material world. What people who ever lived were not aware of those things? The Greeks had Earth, Air, Fire and Water, which just shows they knew about all the different phases of matter and energy. I dob’t presume that knowledge came to them from Mount Olympus and the gods, do I? I think it’s great in the Bible when Moses asks God “Who are you?” And he answers “I am what I am.” This shows me that whoever wrote the book was aware that there is no explaining the first cause. It is wha it is, whatever it is. I’m not saying I’m sure my thesis is correct. I’m pretty sure there is probably a deeper explanation on the quantum level. Maybe something like Penrose’s conformal cyclical cosmology. I really don’t know. I just don’t see any need for there to have been or reason to think there is a supernatural agent behind it all.

Ken Ammi
I should back up and point out that if you are right then this discussion is a waste of time since we would then be merely accidentally and temporarily existing bio-organisms and there are no universal imperatives—such as any imperatives to adhere to truth, logic and ethics (so, for example, you appeal to logic without a premise).
So this all seems to come down to the subjective phrase “more parsimonious.”
And yet, we have no experience to the effect that physical singularity can just be and can result in that about which we do have experience which is that that information, such as that upon which the entire universe is designed, comes from mind.
Also, “physical” singularity implies a characteristic of the universe.
As to the Bible, my point was not about “time, space and material world” but that the universe, as a whole, is a time, space, matter continuum and that it had a beginning. To compare that with “Earth, Air, Fire and Water” is to make a category error.
Big Bang cosmogony has nothing accidentally brining about everything.
Also, by definition whatever brought the universe into being is “supernatural.”

Tom Paine replied thusly
But naturalism is the belief that nature is uncaused, not that is was caused by accident. Those are not the same thing. I can’t prove this, but I believe that it is a mistake to think that the physical universe can’t have this or that characteristic that we associate with the objects of our experience. Yes, in our experience when something looks designed it usually is, but that doesn’t allow us to assume without risk that the universe as a whole is incapable of producing design without intelligent input. Yes, in our experience information usually comes from intelligence, but that does not allow us to assume without risk that nature as a whole doesn’t have the potential to produce information without intelligent input. I almost wrote “always” instead of “usually” in the above statements about design and information, but then I realized that to say always begs the question. Why? Because it assumes that all design and information including that which our science tells us is the result of evolutionary forces is actually from an intelligent source beyond nature and that would be to beg the question in favor of supernaturalism. Honestly, you can’t posit that all design and information comes from intelligent sources without begging the question. it would be like me trying to say that DNA and apparent design in living organisms is proof that these things don’t need intelligent input. I won’t say that because I know it begs the question. I will only say they might very well just be counter examples. I can’t know for sure, but they seem to be. You on the other hand seem to be willing to assert that all design and information comes from intelligent sources, but that just begs the question of whether apparent design in living organisms and information in DNA are counter examples to that alleged principle or not.
Ken Ammi You seem to be conflating “no absolute imperative” with “no imperative” and those are completely different terms. I don’t buy into the idea that that which is ultimately insignificant is insignificant to me. Again those two mean different things. Since the ultimately insignificant is in fact insignificant I’m not gonna worry. But I am concerned about what is significant to me and to my fellow human beings. That’s been built into my nature by Nature. And I’m not even sure Nature doesn’t have it’s own sort of intelligence when looked at as an organic whole Also parsimony isn’t entirely subjective. There are definitions of it. For example: The principle that the most acceptable explanation of an occurrence, phenomenon, or event is the simplest, involving the fewest entities, assumptions, or changes. Naturalism is quite obviously IMO (so yeah, I say IMO, because I can’t remove my own cognitive biases, as much as I may try, from my analysis) the more parsimonious hypothesis. Theism multiplies entities rather egregiously by positing a whole other realm of existence, i.e., timeless/spaceless existence. This multiplies entities, assumptions and changes and surely raises more questions than it answers especially when adding in personality. How can a person be timeless and spaceless when the essence of personhood is mind and the essence of mind is thought, thought is a process and processes are time dependent???Sure there are possible rationalizations of these problems, but they are utterly ad hoc. Every person in our experience exists in time and space, if I’m expected to believe that a timeless spaceless person exists, I’m deontically entitled to being provided some evidence. What even is timeless existence? If someone tells me that something exists, my first questions are where and when. If I’m told this entity exists at no time and no in place, that sounds practically the same as saying it doesn’t exist at all. However, under the naturalistic assumption, most likely the universe in its initial condition as a singularity existed uncaused in the instant before the Big Bang. This is where all physical evidence points. And so, I can tell you where it existed and when it existed, though realize “where” and “when” are relative terms. It existed in the only space that existed at the time, perhaps a plank unit cubed (not sure that is a correct quantum interpretation), and at the very first instant of time, relatively speaking about 14 billion years ago. there’s no need to posit a whole other realm of existence beyond nature. That’s why it’s called naturalism, and that’s why it’s more parsimonious. As I said I won’t say that is a fact because I can’t empirically test parsimony. And I won’t say it proves naturalism is true. All I can say is the assumption at the bottom of naturalism sure seems rather evidently more parsimonious given the definition of the principle of parsimony given. And also according to that principle it is the rationally preferable hypothesis. Of course, that’s also “all else being equal”. But all else is never equal. IMO all else also weighs in favor of naturalism and those few points that do seem prima facie to weigh in favor of theism are the result of misconceptions. But that will require a lot more burden of proof. Of course I believe I can justify that statement. I just don’t have time right now.

Ken Ammi
I should note upfront that your comments equate beginning with conclusions, un-premised conclusions and conclusions based on premises that your worldview cannot justify.
You seem to state that you believe that “nature is uncaused” and not “caused by accident” but when you say that “it is a mistake to think that the physical universe can’t have this” I am unsure to what you are referring: does “this” refer to a cause, an accidental cause, being uncaused—what?
You also imply that when something looks designed, is information based, it is for some reason reasonable to deny it that it is the result of intelligent input.
My view is based on what we know, your reply is that we should base our views on what which we do not know—on the off chance that perhaps, somehow, maybe, etc.
Now, please realize that to speak of that which “our science tells” is a fallacy as “science” tells us nothing rather, human scientists tell us things and there is a huge difference between the two.
As to begging the question in favor of supernaturalism well, that is the question upon which “our science,” the scientific method, is premised.
And no, “our science” does not tell us that the universe and information are “the result of evolutionary forces.”
I see we come to one of Atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of seeking subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence since you, for some unknown reason have personally decided that you are “concerned about what is significant to me and to my fellow human beings” which also stinks of speciesism.
You then merely assert that “That’s been built into my nature by Nature” and you then speculate that Nature (in with a capital letter and which you virtually personify as you did “our science”) may “have it’s own sort of intelligence” which is a nice (but unjustified) goal moving—God is not the intelligence but “Nature” may be.
To take a page from your book, there is a difference between “parsimony isn’t entirely subjective” and “parsimony is subjective.” For example, you cannot claim that “Naturalism is quite obviously…the more parsimonious hypothesis” without knowing all that is involved. Also, you are clearly beginning with the speculated conclusion that “Nature” can do things that “Nature” is unknown to be able to do. You are beginning to sound like a Pagan—literally, in terms of nature worship.
As to how a person be timeless and spaceless well, you answered your own question: mind is spaceless and thought is a time dependent process when being exercised within a time domain. But I am not merely punting since we know that different organisms’ minds function differently, that, for example, jellyfish do not even have brains, etc. so we cannot simply assert a neat claim about minds and thoughts.
So, that a timeless spaceless person exists is simple logic.
Now, when you refer to that to which you are “entitled” you are merely asserting your own self-appointed authority as you have yet to provide a premise for anything you wrote much less have bridged the “is” “ought” problem.
As, on your worldview, temporarily existing animals on a temporarily existing planet in a temporarily existing universe: you are entitled to nothing nor is it incumbent upon me to provide you anything.
You also seem to see that we are on a very similar boat but you try to claim that your boat is better because well, your playing with terms like science and evolution for one and because you have decided that “the universe in its initial condition as a singularity existed uncaused IN THE INSTANT BEFORE the Big Bang” (although I appreciate the qualifiers “assumption, most likely”).
Granted, such issues are difficult since we live in an time, space, matter domain and so it is difficult to conceive of things such as eternality/timelessness and are all but forced of speaking in terms of “before” when we are referring to before time. But we have no experience of an uncaused something that what, comes into being uncaused in the instant before that of which we do know? We have no experience of uncaused things coming into being, uncaused explosions, uncaused explosions leading to information, etc.
Now, it is actually called naturalism because it is Pagan: again, naturalists assert that “Nature” can do things that it is unknown to do.
But the biggest problem for you is that if naturalism is more parsimonious and more evidence based then that is all the more reason to reject it because then it does not matter.
I mean seriously, how cares (and I do not mean subjectively) what a temp animal believes via its temp brain made up of temp chemicals?
I would very much prefer to focus on what premise you have for truth, logic and ethics since your combined 878 word comments lead to one that is 825 words and that will only lead to unsustainable exponential growth.

Well, Tom decided to not only ignore my point about word could but took it up a few notches. Rather than posting his following four comments, I will post my reply and you will get the gist:
I hope you will pardon me but I literally do not have time to reply to four lengthy comments you wrote—I already spend hours replying to comments as it is and cannot trade essays.
The bottom line of your view seems to be that if it looks designed then it is not designed because if it is designed then it is troublesome to your worldview.
In any case, in order to simplify matters: how does your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic or ethics, for holding to these and for demanding that others do likewise?

Tom Paine
No, you completely straw manned my view. I never said that if something looked designed that it’s not. What I did say is that just because some natural thing looks designed we cannot assume that it is intelligently designed. For one thing evolutionary theory gives us a very plausible and so far unfalsified theory of how natural processes can mimick intelligent design. Secondly, there is no logical basis for concluding that nature cannot have some sort of inherent telos. Yes, the complex proper parts of nature, i.e., all the objects of our experience, appear to have no inherent telos, but it does not logically follow then that nature as a whole has no inherent telos. That I think is a concise summary of my argument if you would care to respond to the short version. As to your question, the premises of truth, logic and ethics are all axiomatic. They are either self-evident truths or assumed to be true (unless proven false), and this is true whether your worldview is based on naturalism or theism. In order to base ethics on divine command one must either consider the existence of God to be self-evident or assume His existence in oder to provide a foundation for your ethics. My ethics it founded on the axiom that it is morally right to act according to the principle of reciprocity and morally wrong to act against the principle without justification, and I believe that the principle of reciprocity was determined by social evolutionary imperative. Since, if I am correct, the moral axiom is not determined by personal opinion, then it is by definition epistemically objectively true. Logic is based on self-evident truths about the nature of reality and language, again true whether operating under theism or naturalism. Truth is simply the correspondence of beliefs or propositions to reality. So, reality is the basis of truth. Naturalism does not deny that there is any absolute reality. It does not even deny that there are absolute truths. Analytical truths are all absolute and eternal, but are tautological. The only thing that kind of truth that us unlikely under naturalism is that there is any sort of comprehensive absolute truth, i.e., some set of propositions that fully describe and perfectly correspond to reality. BTW: Ken, no need to be pardoned. Feel free to respond or not, however your time allows. Excuse me for being overly verbose.

Ken Ammi
Well, if I straw-manned your view I did not mean to. However, I am certain that you might see how “just because some natural thing looks designed we cannot assume that it is intelligently designed” is awfully close to “if something looked designed that it’s not.”
Now, if you want to refer to the “evolutionary theory” then you will have to define to what you are referring first (since, for example, there is no “evolutionary theory” but various evolutionary theories—plural).
What we do have is a logical basis for concluding that nature cannot account for itself.
As to truth, logic and ethics: I am empathetic about you asserting that they are axiomatic since you realize that your worldview fails to provide a premise for them, for adhering to them and finally for that which makes your asserted axioms irrelevant: even if they are axiomatic then you have only gotten as far as “is” but still have no “ought.” Thus, there is no universal imperative to adhere to truth, logic and ethics—on your worldview.
I will note that you referred to “ethics” but then to “morally” that his may become an issue as they are technically very different.
As to your assertion of a “social evolutionary imperative”: has it evolved (whatever that means) or is it still evolving? Also, are you against abortion?

Tom Paine
No, those two statements are not even close to meaning the same thing. The first is stating that it’s possible that the appearance of design is not necessarily indicative of actual intelligent design and the second says that it’s necessarily not indicative of such. When I speak of evolutionary theory, I’m basically speaking of Darwinism: ” ….all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor… the development of life from non-life… a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival — a process known as “natural selection.” These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation…” Sure we’ve learned a lot since the time of Darwin such as the role of genetics is inheritance. This of course was a huge boost to TOE even though Darwin knew nothing of DNA, because it proved that a such a mechanism, that was predicted by the theory, for inheritance exists and is completely consistent with the theory. Sure there are is plenty of room for debate on non core issues regarding inheritance, but basic pillars of the theory, common decent and natural selection, etc., are all intact after nearly two centuries of testing. I’m not saying nature can account for itself. I’m saying that philosophically speaking, whatever is fundamental to reality is fundamental and cannot be accounted for by itself or something beyond itself. There is simply no other answer to the IMO stupid question “Why does something exist instead of nothing” except that “It just does!” That’s the reality we are faced with. Proposing the existence of an inexplicable Being who created it all only pushes the question back one very unparsimonious step. “As to truth, logic and ethics: I am empathetic about you asserting that they are axiomatic since you realize that your worldview fails to provide a premise for them, for adhering to them and finally for that which makes your asserted axioms irrelevant: even if they are axiomatic then you have only gotten as far as “is” but still have no “ought.” Thus, there is no universal imperative to adhere to truth, logic and ethics—on your worldview.” I’m sorry, but that is a load of absolutist bollix. No worldview provides premises for it’s axioms (axioms literally ARE the PREMISES), so you have no idea what you are talking about. Axioms are generally things that are held to be self-evident. Of course, what seems self-evident to one person may not seem self-evident to another, and that’s why we have debates like this. I’m trying to explain to you why I think the idea that it is self-evident that everything that begins to exist has a cause –if you include the universe as a whole as part of everything–is WRONG. The universe is not a part of everything, the universe is the whole of everything and you cannot hold the whole to rules that are inferred from our experience of what are all but parts of that whole. It’s a type of the fallacy of composition. And, why are we discussing oughts? Anyway, the imperative to adhere to truth is that falsehood can get you killed. If I stand in front of train in the false belief that I’m an immortal God, then I die. I don’t want to die, which is probably because I’m an evolved being and with evolution (though not necessarily for individual humans) survival is the ultimate “good.” And so to me and nearly all humans there is a kind of imperative to know the truth. So, there IS an imperative of sorts for truth. Logic is imperative if one wants to reliably get at the truth, and ethics is imperative if we wish to have a society that can survive and flourish.

Ken Ammi
Well, denying design by basing it on Darwinian evolutionary theory is to impose a worldview philosophy as an interpretive lens.
Indeed, Darwinism’s premise that that “all life is related” for which there is zero evidence that the “common ancestor” is a crypto-zoological mythical chimera. The theory is about species (whatever that means) originating from other already preexisting species and such is what is still un-evidenced.
I 100% understand why you consider what has been historically viewed as the most important philosophical question “Why does something exist instead of nothing?,” declare it “stupid” and reply “It just does!” Yes, exactly: your worldview fails before it even begins. It is not that the question is stupid, it is that your worldview has no reply except the same reply that it has for anything and everything, “It just does!” “It just is!” “it just happens to have happened by accident,” etc.
Yet, it is not accurate that “Proposing the existence of an inexplicable Being who created it all only pushes the question back” since it provides a commencement point: a self-existent being.
Now, the problem for you, since you chose a very, very poor worldview, is that even if and especially if evolution is true, if anything that exists exists just because then guess what, you just 100% discredited everything you have ever argue since you are merely typing out the byproduct of accidental biochemical neural reactions.
You are confused about the issue of premises. I did not ask you for “premises for it’s axioms” but about your worldview’s premise for truth, logic and ethics.
So, “why are we discussing oughts?” because without oughts/imperatives then you can throw truth, logic and ethics out the window: if we ought not be truthful, logical and ethical then there is no way to even have a discussion. On your worldview, being truthful, logical and ethical are mere subjective options.
Now, to assert that “the imperative to adhere to truth is that falsehood can get you killed” is merely pragmatic: you are basing that on hidden assumptions such as that not being killed matter, that it is an ought, etc. and yet, survival is merely the result on an accidental mutation, on your worldview.
Thus, when you write, “I don’t want to die” that is a mere option since and that “survival is the ultimate ‘good’” is imposing an ethic and also myopic: I mean, just listen to extremist environmentalists and animal rights people who will tell you that your death is “good” for the planet and animals—and they argue evolutionarily just like you do.
You also commit a category error in assertion “Logic is imperative if one wants to reliably get at the truth” since one category is “imperative” and a different one is “if one wants to”: imperative means that your subjective desires are irrelevant as an imperative is a “must do” and not a “do it only if you feel like it.”
Same with “ethics is imperative if we wish to have a society that can survive and flourish”: if it is an imperative then it is not based on a “wish” and you are sneaking in the assertion that human “society that can survive and flourish” is “good.”
But these issues are problematic to you because you worldview simply fails—which is why you must always begin with conclusions.
Lastly, you did not reply about your stance on abortion.

Tom Paine
Ken Ammi “Well, denying design by basing it on Darwinian evolutionary theory is to impose a worldview philosophy as an interpretive lens.” No, it’s not. It’s simply a statement of the fact that Darwin’s theory offers a naturalistic explanation for apparent design in nature. “Indeed, Darwinism’s premise that that “all life is related” for which there is zero evidence that the “common ancestor” is a crypto-zoological mythical chimera. The theory is about species (whatever that means) originating from other already preexisting species and such is what is still un-evidenced.” You are being ignorant. There’s tons of evidence for common descent: http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~genovese/depot/archive/evidence-CD.pdf Species: “A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring. ” “Yes, exactly: your worldview fails before it even begins. It is not that the question is stupid, it is that your worldview has no reply except the same reply that it has for anything and everything, “It just does!” “It just is!” “it just happens to have happened by accident,” etc. Yet, it is not accurate that “Proposing the existence of an inexplicable Being who created it all only pushes the question back” since it provides a commencement point: a self-existent being.” Yes, it is pushing the problem back because naturalism is simply the hypothesis that nature itself is self-existent. The burden of proof is on the theist to explain why nature cannot be self-existent. It’s as simple as that. That burden of proof has never been IMO and that is why I’m a naturalist. “Now, the problem for you, since you chose a very, very poor worldview, is that even if and especially if evolution is true, if anything that exists exists just because then guess what, you just 100% discredited everything you have ever argue since you are merely typing out the byproduct of accidental biochemical neural reactions.” That’s utter nonsense, my worldview in no way implies that “neural reactions” are accidental. The human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe. It arose from evolutionary processes that are not random. Yes, mutations are random, but natural selection is decidedly NON random. A neural activity is more non random. It’s highly organized because as I said the brain is the most complex structure in the known universe. In fact, you DID accuse me of having no premises for my axioms. Now you are asking me what my premises are for truth, logic and ethics. However, I explained that rather painstakingly in my last post. “On your worldview, being truthful, logical and ethical are mere subjective options.” I’m not even sure what that means. Being truthful is not optional if one wants to know the truth. Logic is imperative to finding the truth, because you cannot makes sense of the data of your sense without processing it through logical algorithms. That’s why we believe that those logical algorithms are true, i.e., because they reliably lead to correct deductions. Ethics is imperative if a society is going to survive and flourish. I already explained all this. Maybe if you try and actually process what I’m saying instead of trying to pick it apart, you’d be able to understand what I’m saying I wouldn’t have to keep addressing off-base critiques of it. At the risk of sounding boastful, I tested in the upper 2% of the people taking the Graduate Record Exam in the area of verbal reasoning. That doesn’t mean I’m infallible, but it does mean that I’m well above average in verbal reasoning, so it’s not likely that I’m going to be making arguments that are total nonsense like you think I am. IMO, you simply disagree with my conclusion and so rather than actually thinking about whether my arguments make sense you are assuming they don’t and futilely trying to find fault with them. Drop you confirmation bias for a moment and try and actually process what I’m saying. “You also commit a category error in assertion “Logic is imperative if one wants to reliably get at the truth” since one category is “imperative” and a different one is “if one wants to”: imperative means that your subjective desires are irrelevant as an imperative is a “must do” and not a “do it only if you feel like it.” That’s not a category error. You simply aren’t processing what I’m saying. I’m not sure what you think I mean by “imperative.” In this sentence it just means “necessary.” So, am I wrong that employing logic is necessary if one wants to get at the truth.” That seems pretty much self-evident to me. “Now, to assert that “the imperative to adhere to truth is that falsehood can get you killed” is merely pragmatic: you are basing that on hidden assumptions such as that not being killed matter, that it is an ought, etc. and yet, survival is merely the result on an accidental mutation, on your worldview.” Merely pragmatic? I don’t know what you are trying to get at. Evolution IS totally pragmatic. My take on morality is that it is the product of social evolution. That is, there is a survival imperative for a society to inculcate the value of reciprocity in its members. If a society is not successful in this then it does not survive to pass its values on to future generations. As such, we find this value in every surviving society and this is what we call morality. It has been determined by social evolutionary imperative (survival of the fittest societies). Now, the definition of an epistemically objective fact is that it is NOT determined by personal opinion. Morality has NOT been determined by personal opinion but by social evolutionary imperative and so, by definition, it is an epistemically objective fact that it’s morally wrong to violate the principle of reciprocity and morally good to abide by the principle. Yes, survival is a “good”. It is not itself the “moral good,” but group survival is the actual objective that defines the moral ought. Members of society ought to act morally if they want their society to survive and flourish.It’s as simple as that. Even IF morality was based commandments from God, God would reasonably have to have some reasons for His commands right? They aren’t just arbitrary. Why would God care whether his creatures obeyed the golden rule (a variant of the principle of reciprocity) except that He has some objective in mind. And would that objective not be the survival and flourishing, ie., the welfare of His creatures? I just don’t see any reason to impose God into the picture. It make perfect sense that there would be a social evolutionary imperative for reciprocity. It’s a perfectly plausible naturalistic explanation of why epistemically objective moral values exist. Sure, the idea that there is an eye in the sky watching over us even when no one around who can punsih us even after death is an idea with some social utility in prodding people to act morally even when no other person is watching, but that has no bearing on whether it’s true or not.
Ken Ammi Also Thus, when you write, “I don’t want to die” that is a mere option since and that “survival is the ultimate ‘good’” I never said that survival is the “ultimate good”; you are straw manning me now. Also, I presume you mean opinion not option. Of course, rather than a mere opinion the goodness of survival is a near universal human value. When people don’t value their own survival we feel they are sick. Why? Because we are evolved beings and if beings don’t value their own survival then they are less likely to survive and so less likely to pass on their disposition and values to future generations. But you seem to be confused about what I’m saying. I’m not saying that survival is the moral good. Again the moral good is reciprocity and once again this has been determined by evolutionary imperative. Reciprocity is imperative to survival of groups of sentient social beings, this why social evolution has determined that human societies will value reciprocity. Again, since this value is determined by social evolutionary imperative and not by anybody’s personal opinion, it is objective in the epistemic sense.

Ken Ammi
Well friend, I apologize but I can no longer trade essays. In short, if you are correct then that is all the better reason to reject your views because if we are merely temporarily and accidentally existing apes then delusion, such as theism, is a survival mechanism and in any case, what we believe is irrelevant—especially when our very thoughts are the result an on accidental mixture of chemical subject to the laws of nature: our beliefs are merely the byproduct of neural reactions. Laws of nature which are also accidental as they just happened to happen within an accidentally and temporarily existing universe. You still have not replied about abortion.

Tom Paine
Well, in my view nothing is totally accidental. Everything flows from the laws of nature which are non random (though perhaps at the quantum level there is some randomness) and to me at least apparently has some sort of telos. I mean, even under naturalism, life could not evolve unless the potential for it exists intrinsically within the universe itself from the beginning. As far as religion goes. I’m all for the religious sentiment that we are all children of God/Nature and that we ought to treat each other accordingly. But I don’t think valuing love and reciprocity requires one to reject sound scientific theories and cling to superstitious beliefs such as that some entity is gonna come and save us from ourselves. There’s really no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. I understand some atheists are all too willing to do that, and unfortunately there are plenty of theists who will back them up on that because they want people to think that life is meaningless without their religion, which is simply false. Also, given that the brain is the most complex structure in the known universe and that we are conscious and capable of reason and compassion, I don’t think there is anything MERE about neuronal activity. It’s the most wondrous thing I can think of. mere1 adjective that is solely or no more or better than what is specified. “questions that cannot be answered by mere mortals” synonyms: trifling, meager, bare, trivial, paltry, basic, scant, scanty, skimpy, minimal, slender; More the smallest or slightest.

Ken Ammi
You are getting ahead of yourself again by beginning with a conclusion again. For example, of course you believe that the laws of nature are the result of accident(s), the result of previous accidents. You are clearly seeing design all around you but you have bought into a worldview that tells you to deny reality. Why not just admit that you believe that the universe, life, you, etc. are the results of accidents which somehow happened to have happened—even if you believe that “the potential for it [life] exists intrinsically within the universe itself from the beginning” by accident.
Of course “valuing love and reciprocity requires one to reject sound scientific theories” (even though you are basing some of your assertions on unsound ones) since that would be a non sequitur.
No, you are seeing telos but “cling to superstitious beliefs such as that” there is nothing from which to be saved. But then again, when you complain that some reject sound scientific theories and cling to superstitions you are just expressing bio-chemical byproducts that you call thoughts and that subjective opinion is literally impotent and meaningless since it is a mere assertion: there is not universal imperative not reject sound scientific theories and cling to superstitious beliefs on your worldview.
You hit upon one of Atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence. Indeed, you can make up your own meaning: Mother Theresa did and so did Hitler.
So, “the brain is the most complex structure in the known universe” by accident “and that we are conscious and capable of reason and compassion” but being capable of something is not the same as there being an imperative to do it: and your worldview provides no such imperative.

Tom Paine
Ken Ammi >You are getting ahead of yourself again by beginning with a conclusion again. For example, of course you believe that the >laws of nature are the result of accident(s), the result of previous accidents. No, the fundamental laws of nature are not the results of accidents. The fundamental laws are brute facts. Sure, there is some overlap in the definition of “brute fact” and “accident” but they are not the same thing. They both have no deliberate cause, but the former has no cause whatever (as properties of the uncaused first cause) while the latter still have some cause just not deliberate one. >You are clearly seeing design all around you but you have bought into a worldview that tells you to deny reality. No, there is nothing in naturalism that requires me to deny any reality. >Why not just admit that you believe that the universe, life, you, etc. are the results of accidents which somehow happened >to have happened—even if you believe that “the potential for it [life] exists intrinsically within the universe itself from the >beginning” by accident. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say there. The potential for anything that actually happens has to exist within the universe. That’s self-evident. It’s not self-evident that the potential is intrinsic to nature itself, but that is a more parsimonious hypothesis than to posit that it is imparted to nature by a supernatural agent. The potential for life that exist within the universe would not be an accident, it would be an intrinsic property of nature, which as I have explained is not the same as saying that it’s an accident. >Of course “valuing love and reciprocity requires one to reject sound scientific theories” (even though you are basing >some of your assertions on unsound ones) since that would be a non sequitur. What? Valuing anything is a subjective act and doesn’t require one to either accept or reject any scientific theory. How would my valuing love require me to reject a sound scientific theory. You’re talking nonsense. Not sure if I’ve addressed your point point because your statement isn’t even coherent. >No, you are seeing telos but “cling to superstitious beliefs such as that” there is nothing from which to be saved. Again, what? How is that superstitious. >But then again, when you complain that some reject sound scientific theories and cling to superstitions you are just >expressing bio-chemical byproducts that you call thoughts and that subjective opinion is literally impotent and >meaningless since it is a mere assertion: there is not universal imperative not reject sound scientific theories and cling to >superstitious beliefs on your worldview. I don’t know whether I’d call it an imperative, but I certainly believe that it would behoove the human race to let go of superstition and embrace sound scientific theory. And just because human thoughts are the by product of biochemical reactions doesn’t mean they cannot be more or less rational or more or less conducive to human well being. Are you in the thrall of the idiotic idea that the electrochemical signal processing that goes on in the human brain, the most complex structure in the known universe, is in any way analogous to a simple chemical reaction. That argument is the equivalent of someone arguing that because a simple electrical current cannot process information then neither can a computer. It’s just a horribly fallacious argument and you should just drop it now. >You hit upon one of Atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless >existence. Indeed, you can make up your own meaning: Mother Theresa did and so did Hitler. I don’t seeing anything consoling or delusional about believing that meaning is subjective. Meaning IS undeniably ontologically subjective (mind-dependent) and would be even if God had some purpose for creating the world. That meaning would still be dependent on the mind of God and hence ontologically subjective. You could argue that it’s not epistemically subjective for humans then because it would not be determined by any individual human opinion. However, I can…and did… make the same argument for epistemically objective moral values under naturalism. They are epistemically objective because they are not determined by any individual human opinion, but rather by social evolutionary imperative. Sure Hitler subscribed to an aberrant morality, what Nietzsche called “master morality.” But Neitzsche was a damned fool who apparently didn’t understand the real social evolutionary basis of morality and apparently neither did Hitler. That’s all. If someone defines a “dog” as a “flightless bird”, they are not creating their own personal definition of “dog” they are simply talking nonsense. The same goes for anybody who tries to define morality as something other than what it actually is (fundamentally the principle of reciprocity). >So, “the brain is the most complex structure in the known universe” by accident “and that we are conscious and capable >of reason and compassion” but being capable of something is not the same as there being an imperative to do it: and >your worldview provides no such imperative. Again, the brain evolved and evolution is only partly based on random mutations. Evolution is largely based on survival of the fittest and there is nothing random about that, and again neither are the laws of nature random. As for the rest, I think you are simply misunderstanding what I mean by “imperative.” I’m using it in this sense: imperative 1. of vital importance; crucial. “immediate action was imperative” synonyms: vitally important, of vital importance, all-important, vital, crucial, critical, essential, of the essence, a matter of life and death, of great consequence, necessary, indispensable, exigent, pressing, urgent; etc. You seem to think I’m trying to use it in this sense: 2. giving an authoritative command; peremptory. I understand that under divine command theory morality is an imperative in sense 2. Under naturalism it is, of course, not an imperative in that sense, but it is an imperative in sense 2, a “social evolutionary imperative.” That is, if a society is going to survive and flourish it is imperative that it inculcates the value of reciprocity in its members. Survival is essential (imperative) to evolution and morality is essential (imperative) to the survival of society. Get it?

Ken Ammi
Friend, I am not trading essays. In short, if you believe anything like that which follows then your comments are precisely as meaningful and potent and imperative as apes arguing whether it is “ooh, ooh, aah, ahh” or “aah, aah, ooh, ooh”:
Nothing caused nothing or an eternal uncaused first cause to explode for no reason, made everything without meaning, the universe, life, you, your brain are accidents, your thoughts are the mere byproducts of random bio-chemical neural reactions predetermined by the laws of nature as you, a temporarily and accidentally existing organism, sit atop an temporarily and accidentally existing rock orbiting a temporarily and accidentally existing star in the backwaters of a temporarily and accidentally existing universe.
I realize that Atheism offers various surface level appealing consoling delusions to run away from these facts but facts are that which they are—by accident, on your worldview.

Tom Paine
You keep repeating the fallacy of Nature being random and use it to justify rejecting my wold view. Again, randomness is a function of having a number of possibilities and not being able to predict the outcome. That does not apply to the universe /Nature as a whole. It simply is what it is and there’s nothing random about it, unless perhaps some kind of quantum randomness is involved, and even then I think that would only apply to proper parts of Nature and not Nature as whole. The brain is evolved and, as I explained already, evolution isn’t random because neither the laws of physics nor the process of natural selection is random. So, your argument there also lacks merit. Our brains have evolved a much higher degree of intelligence than apes, so obviously comparing what I’m saying to an ape going oooh ooooh ooooh is ridiculous. And quite to the contrary it is theism that offers the consoling delusions to run away from realities like death, though I tend to agree with Epicurus that the fear of death is irrational. http://marklindner.info/writings/Epicurus.htm

Ken Ammi
Continuing to appeal to the Atheist consoling delusion that there is subjective meaning in the objective meaninglessness by proposing that the universe, life, you, your brain, your thoughts were came about randomly but are not random what is fallacious: but that is on my worldview which has a premise for condemning fallacy and not on yours which would say that if holding to fallacy gives you a survival advantage then have at it.
Call it what you will but your worldview is that the universe, life, you, your brain, your thoughts are all undersigned, uncreated, accidental and temporary.
You also say, in the past tense, “The brain is evolved” but what makes you so sure that it has stopped evolving? In fact, since it is still evolving (whatever that means) then it may function very differently in the future and what is logical today will be illogical then and visa versa.
But I see that you are appealing to “the laws of physics”: invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, administrators of the universe—sounds familiar. Yet, on your worldview the laws of physics are accidents.
Well, you may think (with “think” being the mere byproduct of accidentally evolved chemical reactions in which you put much too much stock) that you have a higher degree of intelligence than apes but the point is the same: they are making sounds and attribute meaning to them and so are you. You just subjectively assign more import to your chemical reactions but if you traipsed into a Silverback’s territory, you would soon find out that it disagrees with you.
In short, your worldview fails before it even begins since it provides no premise for truth, logic and ethics and especially no premise upon which to make adhering to these an imperative.
When you argue that for some unknown reason we evolve to survive and survive to evolve then it is a matter of do what thou wilt—unless you beg, borrow and steal from my worldview.
For example, you say “it is theism that offers the consoling delusions to run away from realities like death” and the come back is quite simple: so what if it does?

Tom Paine
Ken Ammi Of course, my worldview has a premise for condemning fallacies. It’s called logic. You’re the one who’s reasoning is fallacious. You are saying that because simple chemical reactions (soda fizz or whatever) cannot code information about it’s environment, therefore the human brain cannot do that. I think I’ve already pointed out how stupid that is. It’s a totally false analogy and it’s a sort of composition fallacy. Again, can a simple electrical current code information about it’s environment. NO. But a self driving car can. We know this for a fact. So, if the electric brain in a self driving car can do that, then what reason is there to think that our human brains, the most complex structures in the known universe, would not be able to do as much, and then some. Since the human brain can code information about its environment and has evolved to use logical algorithms (something a self driving car can do also, though programmed by us rather than evolution) to process and make sense out of that information, then that right there is the naturalistic basis for identifying logical fallacies. On my worldview the laws of physics are not accidental any more than on theism the nature of God is accidental. Yes, there is no, and can be no explanation for why fundamental reality –at least in its initial condition–is what it is, because it is uncaused. The difference between theism and my take on naturalism is just that the fundamental is not something beyond nature, but just Nature itself. Yes, I find a physical nature that just happens to have the capacity to evolve sentient life to be a more plausible hypothesis than that the hypothesis that a timeless, immaterial person created Nature. Not only is it more parsimonious, it doesn’t require me to posit something as absurd as a timeless person. That’s not even a coherent concept. The essence of personhood is sentience, the essence of sentience is thought, and thought is a process and processes are time dependent. As such the idea of a timeless person is utterly nonsensical. Also, every person I know of is at least partially a material being. I have no experience of immaterial persons, as such I’m not even sure such a thing is possible. Please stop repeating things I’ve already refute. On naturalism, the premise for truth is reality. Truths are simply propositions that correspond to reality. There’s nothing in my worldview that makes our having ideas about the world impossible and there is nothing that prevents those ideas from more or less corresponding to reality. Evolution should very much favor faculties that produce ideas that correspond with reality because by and large having accurate ideas of reality is more conducive to survival than having false ones. The premise for logic is much the same, i.e., the rules of logic are just algorithms we use to process the raw data of our senses and help us discern information that we might not be getting directly from the raw data. The premise for morality is group survival. It’s very reasonable to believe that groups of individuals (societies) who treat each other according to the principle of reciprocity (i.e.act morally) survive and thrive better than one who don’t. In fact, I’d say reciprocity is the sine qua non of human (and likely all sentient) society. Humans survive better as a members of a society than as “lone wolves.” It all makes perfect sense under naturalism, much more so actually than under theism. Under theism it’s hard to explain why humans are evolved at all. The evidence of human evolution is VERY WELL established. Why is that the case if as theist believes we were molded from dust by a God who breathed the spirit of life into us. Something for which there is NO EVIDENCE at all. Under theism it’s hard to explain the fact that our cognitive faculties actually are far from perfect. It makes sense under evolution and it’s the reason why it took us millennia of social evolution to develop tools like math, formal logic and science to correct for the deficiencies in our biologically evolved faculties. But if God created us, why did He create us with much better faculties. Why do we have to learn, math and science, why isn’t this just built into our brains or revealed in scripture? It’s especially perplexing to think that God creates us with these faulty faculties but then expects us to be able to see the supposed wisdom of his plan to send his son to be tortured to death in order that we can be forgiven for being imperfect humans as He created us. Well, I don’t see the wisdom of it. In fact it strikes me as rather unhinged. Whose fault is that though? I didn’t create my own mental apparatus. The fact is, dude, you’ve got nothing other than the totally wrong assertion that there is no basis for truth, logic or morality on naturalism. You think somehow by asserting that that you can win by never even letting me get started. Unfortunately this isn’t one of those stupid presup videos where you can constantly cut off my arguments before I can get sto the point by pepper spraying me with idiotic questions and the repeated assertion that I can’t even begin to offer an argument because I have no basis. You’re just wrong about that, and I have very cogently explained why. Take it or leave it, but if you’re either unequipped or unwilling to understand my arguments. That’s your loss, not mine.
“You also say, in the past tense, “The brain is evolved” but what makes you so sure that it has stopped evolving? In fact, since it is still evolving (whatever that means) then it may function very differently in the future and what is logical today will be illogical then and visa versa. ” Well, yes, the brain is still evolving, slowly. However, it would be impossible for logic to become illogical or vice versa. Logical rules are algorithms that produce true outputs(corresponding to reality)when given true (corresponding to reality) inputs. They are based on the way things work in reality and the way language works. In a sense these are algorithms that we discover (or were discovered by evolution as much of our reasoning goes on at a subconscious level) not that we invent. Of course its possible that we could evolve (or devolve) away from more logical/reasonable understandings of reality, but it seems unlikely given how valuable a true understanding of reality is to survival. Of course, it’s possible that certain false ideas could be useful to survival, religions and other social concepts, tribalism, etc., may be good examples. My thinking though, right or wrong, is that it will be conducive to the survival and flourishing of the human race as a whole for more people to believe more true ideas and fewer false ideas.

Ken Ammi
Well friend, I cannot trade essays with you as it take me HOURS to write replies to all of the comments I get as it is.
In short, when you believe that the universe, Earth, life, you, your brain, your thoughts are accidents (massaged by whatever feel good consoling delusion term you prefer: but they were either created by thoughtful design or not) then all that comes thereafter is merely made up stuff.
Everything you say is merely circular reasoning—which is unreasonable—since, for example, to seek to premise condemning fallacies via logic via a tall tale about how the human brain can code information about its environment and has evolved to use logical algorithms which is merely begging the question and also does not result in an imperative to be logical.
And if it all hinges on what will be conducive to the survival and flourishing of the human race as a whole then that is merely a subjective personal preference based on speciesism and also not an imperative.

Tom Paine
Not even one of your comments was true. Let’s take this one step at a time to keep it from getting out of hand. What do you mean a “tale” about how the human brain can code information? What in the world do you imagine brains do if not code and process information? Yes, it’s true that how the brain codes and processes is far from fully understood, which is not surprising given that the brain is the most complex structure in the known universe. However, I’m really not sure how anybody could doubt that that is what brains do. We know that information can be physically encoded because we can do it with computers, so what on earth reason would there be to doubt that that is what is going on in brains. I’m truly mystified that anybody would even question that. So, tell me if you don’t think the brain’s function is to encode and process information about our environments, what in the world do you think it does? Is it just there to keep our skulls from imploding? I mean, really, I find your questioning of this point unfathomable.

Ken Ammi
But the point is that even if “Not even one of [my] comments was true” it does not matter, I have violated nothing, will not be held transcendently accountable for it, and if it aids my survival to believe in and promulgate falsehoods then so be it—right? Or are you some sort of self-appointed truth police and arbiter of evolution?
The bottom line is that no matter what natural processes you appeal to: on your worldview they are all the result of previous accidents that are the result of previous accidents until it is accidents all the way down.
You could say that hey, this works and works due to that but all of it, the entire universe and everything in it including those thoughts of yours, are there by accidents. And that, I say, is a tragic worldview because it forces you to deny creation via design since no matter how much evidence we have of information preceding all things, not matter how we can see how the universe conforms to mathematical structures, no matter anything: you can just say that it just happens to have happened because something previous to it just happens to have happened ad infinitum. That is one of the true tragedies of Atheism: it is thought restricting.
So yes, “brains…code and process information” but on your view, they do so by accident based on a prior accident, etc. Thus, that which results from those processes is still the result of accidents upon accidents and there is no way to go from that to an imperative such that: you have to be logical, ethical, etc.
So no, this is not about “doubt[ing] that that is what brains do” but that, on your worldview, there is no reason to be impressed by what they do as an end result such as that you are typing out the result of a long series of accidents and I should, for some mysterious reason, be impressed by it, change my accidental neural-chemistry to match yours, etc.
Lastly, you keep sidestepping answering the simple question as to whether you oppose abortion (let us say, convenience abortion to begin with).

See my various books here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Atheist actually says “We know that information can be physically encoded because we can do it with computers”

This is a follow-up on my first post on this issue since other discussions ensued based on the video When atheists slam Genesis without reading it!

A certain Sid Masey commented:

Still doesn’t avoid the issue of inter sibling sex, be they 3 or 1000. It’s still brothers doing their sisters. What am I missing?

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

What of it?

Sid Masey:

Ken Ammi  incest sir, incest. It’s quite problematic. Don’t you think? It’s also unlawful I believe.

Ken Ammi:

Are you an Atheist? If so, I should note that I’m not so you can’t just make vague jumped to conclusion statements and have me approvingly elbow you in the ribs whilst chuckling:

“incest sir, incest”: what of it?

“It’s quite problematic”: why, how so, to whom, etc.?

“Don’t you think?”: Yes.

“It’s also unlawful I believe”: as per whom, when, what does that matter, etc.?

Sid Masey:

I’m not an atheist. Quite the contrary.

Incest causes all sorts of problems on a genetic level for subsequent generations. This is well known and researched, so do not casually imply it is an approved or desirable thing. All civilisations avoid it like the plague (excepting the ancient Persians). I am sure you can find a rule about brothers and sisters laying together being sinful somewhere in Leviticus.

Ken Ammi:

Ah, you hit the genetics nail on the head since you wrote, note your tenses, “problem,a rule about brothers and sisters laying together being sinful somewhere in Leviticus” which is after Genesis. Genesis implies that the originally created people would have had pristine genetics so that such mating would not have been a problem–again, until it became a problem.

Sid Masey:

The logic is correct except that God’s Law is not “created” at the writing up of leviticus, It is actually eternal and unchanging, the natural derivative of God´s very Being. The Jews merely recognized it at some point and wrote down what they understood, appropriate to themselves.

You will also note that in Genesis, while God is creating everything, after every deed it ends “God made X and it was Good” indicating an acceptable comparison to an objective standard is being made, i.e. to the Law, since all things are measured against it in order for them to be categorized good or bad.

So, the issue of brothers and sisters doing one another, remains sinful, which means the design of Adam and Eve cannot carry that intent.

The point about pristine genetics is also not convincing to me, since even if we picture a scenario of the purest genes combining with purest genes, generation after generation, well…..where then, is the genetic pollution coming from that had to be wiped out in the flood?

The only thing that occurs to me is there are at least two genetic streams of mankind created, one Godly (Adam´s) and others which are of unknown and impure origin.

Perhaps the old tales of Lillith are true and could explain much…

Ken Ammi:

The ethos is “eternal and unchanging, the natural derivative of God’s very Being” but it is a non-sequitur to then apply that to individual laws: for example, that sacrifices were only to be made at the Temple was a temporary law (even if based on the eternal ethos).

So when you write, “brothers and sisters doing one another, remains sinful,” “remains” biblical refer to after it was declared sinful and not before.

Are you implying that humanity came about due to sinful physical relations? If so then there’s no indication of that and if not then that’s a defeater for your claim. In other words, with whom did Adam and Eve’s first son and daughter marry?

Genesis 6 tells you “where…is the genetic pollution coming from that had to be wiped out in the flood.” The tales of Lilith may be “old” but not relevant (and I think she’s based on myth-making an owl anyhow).

Sid Masey:

On eternality and individual laws: no High Law that is eternal can be temporary, because God is unchanging, so its not a matter of WHEN a law becomes valid or invalid, but whether a directive IS Divine, or man-made. If it comes from God, it ALWAYS applies, NO exceptions.

So the issue then is whether incest is intrinsically sinful? If it is, then it always has been, and trying to apply a before and after justification, to justify an immoral act, is invalid.

Scripture does explicitly define it as sinful, so technically, it always has been. You never find incest mentioned as a favoured act. What you will find though, are examples of incest being condemned (e.g. Ham and his mother)

As to the claim of human procreation being of an incestuous origin. This is only true if you can prove there were no other humans present beyond the Adam/Eve line. Which you can’t. In fact Genesis 1:27 says

So God created MANKIND in his own image,

in the image of God he created THEM;

male and female he created THEM.

Doesn´t sound like just one couple to me. In fact its only in Genesis 2:7 that God speaks specifically about making ONE unique man. Adam. The special man who originates the Christ bloodline.

So technically we are told there were more people around, so incest is not a necessary condition for the multiplication of humankind. We don´t need it to explain our population boom.

Even science (both genetically and from mating/attraction studies) repudiates incest.

Instinctively do you not repudiate the idea of incest? Its like a priori knowledge, it requires no justification yet we understand the idea of incest as sinful, to be basically true.

There is no basis anywhere for believing that such an act could be anything other than deviation of the holy union men and women were meant to have.

Sorry, not sorry, but I´m thankful for the chat, it seems I managed to answer my original question, so for that I am grateful.

Godspeed.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you’re over complicating: we don’t determine “whether a directive IS Divine, or man-made” based on that it was temporarily applicable or eternal. It’s perfectly in keeping with interacting with a fallen world or entropy that certain laws would be promulgated at certain times. For example, the laws about dealing with leprosy were not bequeathed unto Adam and Eve since there was not yet any such a thing as leprosy, when there was leprosy then laws about it were put in place.

Thus no, incest has not always been sinful, it became sinful when it became a problem.

Thus, even if “trying to apply a before and after justification, to justify an immoral act, is invalid” but such is not the case in this case.

Indeed, “Scripture does explicitly define it as sinful” when it explicitly defined it as sinful—you are just retrograding it. Will you also argue that the laws pertaining to leprosy are eternal?

Indeed, God created all of mankind in His image, “mankind” is a category of being, just like before that reference is made to other categories of being such as birds, land animals, etc. You’re just inserting a meaning in to “mankind” that is not consistent with the context.

Science does not repudiate incest: you must be saying that based on an anachronism and not taking the biblical worldview into consideration, you’re strictly thinking in terms of centuries if not millennia after the fall in this case.

Yes, I instinctively repudiate the idea of incest but my (fallen) instincts are not the standard. Yet, “we understand the idea of incest as sinful, to be basically true” ever since it was declared sinful.

Thus, you are sullying “the holy union men and women” by referring to those who were doing nothing sinful as if they were.

In short, you read a commandment against incest and then artificially demand an application of it to before you read a commandment against incest which, in part, leads to you to invent that “there were more people around.”

Shalom!

Sid Masey:

Ken Ammi  a law may still BE, as in “exist” and be valid even if there is nothing to apply it ON. just because incest isn’t explicitly forbidden in genesis 1:1, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t already part of the legal repertoire, just not revealed yet.

you cannot add or subtract from God, neither from His law. Neither is it changeable to suit the times.The law IS and is Immutable. Whatever is sinful once, is sinful always, before and after its proclamation to humanity.

on a different topic, do you differentiate between God’s higher law and Mosaic Law or do you consider them to be the same thing?

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you are merely arguing from silence—as you admit, “just because incest isn’t explicitly” or even implicitly “forbidden in genesis…” and are becoming incoherent since you admit that and then tell me “you cannot add or subtract from God…” even when I am not adding or subtracting. Actually, you are virtually projecting since you are virtually adding that “it doesn’t mean it wasn’t already part of the legal repertoire.”

Do you believe that there is an “Old Testament” and the also a “New Testament”? If so then you agree that there are certain laws that only apply in certain times. I can’t even imagine how this is an issue for you.

But one problem with your statement “Whatever is sinful once, is sinful always, before and after its proclamation to humanity” is that you can’t show that it was declared sinful before it was declared sinful.

See, you invented that something was sinful before it was declared sinful and that faulty premise forces you to manipulate the Bible in order to read into it what you demand to see within it rather than reading what it’s telling you.

The spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written.

Sid Masey:

I can see were going round in circles now.

You believe God’s law to be malleable  and that it can be start/stopped whenever it is convenient. So, if God tomorrow decided rape to be 👍,  then according to your logic, we would be evil if we did not rape.

I contend Gods law to be immutable, because God is immutable, and since He is timeless, whatever His stance on any issue, remains set for all eternity. So if you discover a Law at any point in time, it is not being created at that point in time, it always has been, yet is at that point, revealed.

We wont agree because we have different views on the nature of God.

You also seem to confuse God’s law with mosaic law. one is truth, the spirit of the law which Christ didn’t break, the other is a letter of law, a permission granted by God to Moses to write a codex.

this is why when Christ resurrects Lazarus and is accused of necromancy, he is technically breaking mosaic law, but not God’s, since he was resurrected himself, after the crucifiction, his perfect righteousness before God earns him life eternal.

So if Christ can break mosaic law, it is natural that THAT set of laws is impermanent. but God’s Ultimate Law cannot. As said by Christ himself.

There are two laws my friend, but only one is the real one, and it isn’t written down on parchment. it is written on our hearts, as we are told in both old and new testaments.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, we seem to be going round in circles because I’m pointing out the chronologically verifiable facts and you are denying them based on your imagination.

Let us try it this way: God’s law commanded the sacrifice of animals, when was the last time you sacrificed an animal?

You are either sacrificing animals for you had to admit that God’s law is malleable—I mean, that’s the very reason there’s an “Old” Testament and “New” one.

But no, not “start/stopped whenever it is convenient” but based on changing needs—which has been the point all along.

One reason that there is no way that God tomorrow could decided rape to be 👍, because rape violates God’s nature—which is what His laws are based on.

So now, combining our two views, perhaps we could say “Gods law to be immutable, because God is immutable, and since He is timeless, whatever His stance on any issue, remains set for all eternity. So if you discover a Law at any point in time, it is not being created at that point in time, it always has been, yet is at that point, revealed” so that God forever knew that there would come a point in time that He would forbid incest and that He would reveal that law when incest became a problem.

Are you denying that Mosaic law is God’s law?

I am not aware of Jesus being accused of necromancy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that ended the discussion.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The Kidadl Team, which “is made up of people from different walks of life, from different families and backgrounds,” posted 48 Facts About Angels That Will Make You Truly Enchanted.

They note, “Angels are spiritual beings…The Bible and other holy scriptures have mentioned angels and described their appearance and powers” and calls Angels, “heavenly beings…are spiritual beings of heaven.”

Specific to my context, they note, “According to the Bible, angels were created much before God created man. We also know that they were created at the same time the Earth was formed.” This is based on a hidden assumption about the age of the Earth but, in short, the Bible does not state, “angels were created much before God created man” but only that sons of God are sometimes Angels then Job 38:7 has them witnessing the creation of the Earth (the LXX has them as Angelos) but that’s about as much as we can say in terms of chronology—it’s about as much as the Bible says.

I’m unsure what they mean by that “Many tales from the holy scripture have described the resurrection of God’s messengers. This includes Jesus Christ himself, the famous Archangel Michael, and many others” since I’m unaware of any resurrection of Michael.

They noted, “Although most tales, movies, books, and dramas portray angels appearing in human form, they do not have any true physical form.” Interestingly, I included a chapter titled “Movies and TV Shows on Loyal Angels and Fallen Angels        161” in my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

As for “appearing in human form” but “do not have any true physical form” well, that’s exactly backward: they are depicted as “appearing in human form” in the Bible with no indication that such isn’t their natural appearance, their ontology, no indication that they change form/shape or take on bodies or the appearance of them.

The articles notes “They can appear in various forms. Some tales portray them as spiritual beings from the heavenly Jerusalem in the form of a beautiful human figure with radiating white or bluish light rays, also called halos. Although we do not know the exact reason for such halos, we can assume that this denotes their spiritual being and imparts positivity.” Biblically, there’s no indication “They can appear in various forms” nor even that they do so “in the form of a beautiful human” nor have halos.

Also “Many scriptures claim that angels live among us in the form of humans” which pertains to “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares” (Heb 13:2).

They rightly note, “According to the scripture, angels in heaven do not marry” with in heaven being the accurate qualifying term. Many take Jesus out of context and claim that He said Angels don’t get married, don’t have genders, etc. but He specifically spoke of “Angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30) which is why those who did are considered sinners, having “left their first estate,” as Jude put it.

Regarding “fallen angels, who are cast out of heaven” they have it that “There are about 200 angels who have been cast out” which they get from the pseudopigraphic text 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch. From some uncited source, they assert “Some of these sons of God are Allocen, Abaddon, Andras, Amy, Amon, Apollyon, Berith, Botis, Buer, Forcas, Gadreel, Gusion, Lahash, Marbas, Naamah, and many more.”

We’re told “They are also called the ‘Watchers’” which comes from the pseudepigraphic era, the Second Temple Era (516 BC-70 AD).

The claim “none of the scriptures, including the Bible or the Abrahamic scriptures, have mentioned fallen angels” which seems to be an issue of terminology—or so I would hope. Perhaps the term “fallen” does not appear in the Bible with regards to them by there is occasion to interpret stars to be a symbolic reference to Angels (“stars are the angels” Rev 1:20):

Dan 8:10 notes that the “little horn…grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them.

Rev 12:4 has the Dragon/Satan/Devil who with “His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth.”

Jude refers to “angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.”

2 Pet 2:4 notes “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [actually Tartarus] and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.”

It’s noted that “The Christian and Pagan mythologies have mentioned several fallen angels, including Chemosh, Moloch, Dagon, Beelzebub, Belial, and Satan. Lucifer, who was the son of God, was cast out of heaven due to his rebellion, and therefore, became Satan.”

Chemosh, Moloch and Dagon are Pagan idols and if such idols represent false gods and the false gods are fallen Angels/demons then, fair enough.

Beelzebub and Belial would be akas for Satan as is Lucifer but he isn’t a son of God since he’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub (Eze 28:14). They go on to note “Angels are messengers of God” and since Cherubim are not messengers then, by definition, they’re not Angels—they and Seraphim have different job titles, different job functions and look different from one another thus, these are three different categories of being.

Thy claim “Some scriptures define angels as having two wings, while others tell us about the presence of six wings on them, which helped the angels fly between heaven and Earth” but Angels don’t have wings, Cherubim have four and Seraphim have six.

Thus, when they claim “The Bible mentions the different kinds of angels…Archangels, Cherubims, and Seraphims” that’s just a basic level category error based on violating the law of identity—if anything, the kinds of Angels, proper, are the Angel of the LORD, Archangels, and regular Angels.

It’s noted, “Other rankings of angels include Dominions, Thrones, Virtues, Archangels, Powers, and Principalities.” Yes, things are listed but since nothing is specified about them in the Bible we know not which category of being belongs in what rank.

They note “Angels do not physically hurt humans. As they have no physical form, they are unable to inflict any pain on humans” yet, this is simply inaccurate on various levels—as we have seen and even if, for example, “the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians” (2 Kin 19:35) only by metaphysically causing death (as it were).

They note, “the Bible has mentioned a number of significant wars that are fought between the angels and the demons. There are tales of war between Satan and God’s angels, including the mighty archangel Michael” but there’s only one, “war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back” (Rev 12:17).

Thus, overall the article is an interesting mishmash but sadly, based on common misconceptions.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Hereinafter is specifically a review of the paper Lee Anderson, Jr.’s paper “Is “Sons of God” in Genesis 6 Adapted Pagan Mythology?” that was published in the Answers Research Journal, 8 (2015): 261–271. My focus will be on that which Anderson has to say about Angelology and Nephilology and not necessarily the issue of Pagan adaptations or not.

It is noted that S.R. Driver, “compares Genesis 6 to the ancient tales of ‘giants’ from Phoenicia, Greece, and other cultures” which is a comparison that can only viably be made about parentage, not about size since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim and the term giants which some use to render (not translate) the Hebrew implies nothing about height, that is not the usage, it is not a descriptor.

Anderson outlines:

…several views have been set forth to explain the identity of “the sons of God” in Genesis 6:2. Most of these views may be grouped into three main categories:

(1) views which assert that “the sons of God” were members of the godly line of Seth (cf. Genesis 5:3ff.) who married ungodly “daughters of men” (likely from the line of Cain, the reprobate); (2) views which hold that “the sons of God” were dynastic rulers who may have been considered semidivine and who acted in wickedness by marrying of “the daughters of men” “all which they chose” (KJV), which is taken to mean that polygamy was rampant; and (3) views that maintain that “the sons of God” were fallen angelic beings who, in rebellion, took to themselves human wives and bore offspring.

The 1-3 order is clearly arbitrary. He comments thusly upon the first, “The interpretation that ‘the sons of God’ were godly members of the line of Seth has been a common understanding since the early centuries of the Christian church, with Julius Africanus (c. 160–c. 240) ([1886] 1994, 131) being the first of the church fathers to promote the view. This view later was popularized by Augustine (354–430) ([1887] 1994, 304), and eventually adopted by the reformers Luther (1483–1546) (1958, 129) and Calvin (1509–1564) ([1843] 1979, 238)” (brackets in original).

I will jump ahead and quote him to this affect, “The oldest exegetical position on the identity of ‘the sons of God’ is that they were fallen angels…This position remained the dominant interpretation until the Sethite view was popularized by Augustine.”

Now, as I prove in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim: to say, “has been a common understanding since the early centuries of the Christian church” may be as mistaken as that it was the popular or majority view, since it was most certainly not.

What is the case is that such a view was, “popularized by Augustine…popularized by Augustine” who was vastly influential.

But note the jump from 160–240 to over two centuries later, 354–430, to millennia later, 1483–1546 and 1509–1564.

Note also the reference to, “godly members of the line of Seth”: knowing this view as I do, I will at this point ponder if “godly members of” implies that some were not or if all Sethites are included in the grammatical structure of his sentence—stand by.

Anderson seeks to encapsulate the view by noting that is it proposed to be, “intermarriage between those faithful to Yhwh (ostensibly the line of Seth recorded in Genesis 5:3–32), and the unfaithful ‘daughters of men.’” Yet, “the precise formula בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים [bene’i ha Elohim] (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) is never used of humans” so that, “the Sethite view cannot adequately explain why the biblical author would take a precise formula that is elsewhere restricted to describing angelic beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) and use it to speak of a particular line of men.”

I said to stand by since the Sethite view is actually based on a myth of some sort of Godly line of Seth and ungodly line of Cain. An issue I oft raise when arguing against it is also why it is exclusively male sons of God/Sethites and exclusively female daughters of men/Cainites. I was pleased to see that Anderson picked upon on that as well, “why does the text mention only the godly men from the line of Seth who married ungodly women? What about the ‘daughters of God’ and the ‘sons of men’? Also, if ‘the sons of God’ were in fact godly men, why did they continue to seek out and marry women of ungodly character? Were there no attractive women who were also godly?”

Also, why, pray tell, have marriages between Godly and ungodly humans not led to subsequent floods since then? Anderson notes, that the view, “highlights the evil line of the reprobate Cain, culminating with the wicked Lamech, and then contrasts that with the line of Seth (Genesis 4:26ff.).”

See what I mean? A grand total of two people, Cain and Lamech (for whom we have the recording of one sin for the former and two for the latter) is enough to condemn an entire lineage/bloodline for some people and that, of course, juxtaposed with likewise generalizing about the entire, “line of Seth” who were so utterly holy that they married unholy women—go figure.

The Angel view explains why it was exclusive sexes on either side of the equation since when Angles are described, they are described as looking just like human males so it could only be females with whom they paired up. It also explains why no more subsequent floods which is because there have been no more subsequent marriages since there is a one time fall of Angels in the Bible and those Angels that thusly sinned were incarcerated (see Jude and 2 Peter 2).

The only similarity the Angel view has with the latter Sethite view is that is denotes holy beings committing unholy acts.

Yet, moving on to that view, Anderson notes, “in contesting the notion that ‘the sons of God’ must have been fallen angels, C. F. Keil argues, ‘If the title ‘sons of God’ cannot involve the notion of physical generation, it cannot be restricted to celestial spirits, but is applicable to all beings which bear the image of God [i.e., humans]’” (“Keil, C. F. (1866–1891) 2011. The Pentateuch. Vol. 1 of Commentary on the Old Testament. By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. Translated by J. Martin. Reprint, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers”).

Note the qualifying terms, “sons of God…fallen angels…celestial spirits…bear the image of God” so that we must do some unpacking. On this view, some sons of God (as per Job 38:7 which has them as non-human beings) refers to Angels, some of whom fell. Yet, since Angles look like human males and there is no indication that such is not their nature then, by definition, they are not spirits.

Now, the argument was that sons of God cannot have referred to fallen Angels since they are supposedly being spirits, they cannot engage in physical generation since only those made in the image of God fit the bill. Yet, since Angels look like human males, we humans were made, “a little lower” (Psalm 8:5) than they, and we can successfully produce offspring with them then, by definition, we are of the same basic kind.

Moreover, the contra Angels and pro-Sethite argument implies:

…such an interpretation matches with the reasons offered in Genesis 6 for God’s resolve to send a global catastrophe to wipe out mankind: “And Yhwh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth . . .” (v. 5; cf. vv. 11–13).

Accordingly, this view connects Genesis 6:1–4 to the following narrative by putting the blame for God’s judgment squarely on the shoulders of the wicked human race.

As Sven Fockner keenly observes, “Because of the way the narrative is designed from Genesis 4 to Genesis 10, the reader expects the passage to deal with the two lines of humanity and the vanishing of one of them. . . . The flood resulted from the wickedness of the people. Before ch. 6, only the unbelievers were depicted as wicked (Lamech). Then the sons of God joined this group” (Fockner 2008, 455) (ellipses in original).

The point is clear, it is meant to emphasize that this was a strictly human vs. human issue or rather, human with human issue, “mankind…man…human race…humanity…people.”

Yet, since Angels are referred to as man/men, then so as Nephilim, and so the terms the Bible uses, typically translated as, “man…man…man…man” in Genesis 6: (KJV).

Moreover, “Another objection argues that the fallen angels view implicates God as unfairly punishing man for wrongs instigated and carried out by demons…this argument wrongly assumes that angelic wickedness in Genesis 6:1–4 is incompatible with the text’s assessment of the brutal wickedness of mankind in Genesis 6:5–7.”

I will swap “demons” with “Angels” and note that the issue is the same since man/men can refer to hummans, Angels, and Nephilim. Thus, Genesis 6 pertains to them all.

We then move on to a view that, “‘the sons of God’…were men in positions of high authority, dynastic rulers…This interpretation first arose in ancient Jewish writings (in the Aramaic Targums), and continued in popularity among Jewish interpreters in the middle ages down to the present day (Birney 1970, 47; Kline 1962, 194; cf. Zlotowitz 1988, 180–82.). The view is, however, a relative ‘newcomer’ to Christian interpretations of the identity of ‘the sons of God.’”

It is difficult to agree that it is found in, “ancient Jewish writings” without being told which Aramaic Targumim are being referenced. In reality, it is not only a, “relative ‘newcomer’ to Christian interpretations” but to Jewish ones as well since the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christians alike is the Angel view—as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

Anderson notes:

Leroy Birney argues that magistrates or administrators of justice are called אֱלֹהִים [elohim] in Exodus 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28…used of them in Psalm 82:1, and the expression בְנֵי עֶלְיוֺן [ben Elion] (“sons of the Most High”) is used of the magistrates in verse 6…it was not uncommon to use divine epithets to refer to magistrates…the practice of using “divine” epithets to refer to human rulers has a long history among pagan nations…

Other interpreters, recognizing the apparent weakness of the dynastic rulers view from a lexical standpoint, have attempted to couple it with the fallen angels view (see below), arguing that the rulers in question were demon possessed.

Anderson notes, “while groups of rulers are occasionally referred to as ‘gods’ (אֱלֹהִים [elohim]) in Scripture, they are never referred to corporately as ‘sons of God’ (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים).”

Yet, moreover, there is no such concept in the entire Bible about there being anything wrong—much less flood worthy—about cross-class marriages. It is simply unknown that there was condemnation, at any point in biblical history, between hoi polloi and, “men in positions of high authority, dynastic rulers…magistrates or administrators of justice…human rulers.”

This is tantamount to what Anderson notes about the assertion that the problem is said to have been just that plus that they were polygamous, “there is no convincing evidence to suggest that polygamy would have compelled the Lord to send the catastrophic Genesis Flood.”

A few other views are considered such as:

Lyle Eslinger, who states that “the daughters of men” in Genesis 6:2 refers to the female descendants of Seth (instead of Cain, as per the Sethite view), with “the sons of God” being the descendants of Cain (Eslinger 1979, 65–73).

The main basis for Eslinger’s argument is that Genesis 5 repeatedly mentions the offspring of Seth as having “other sons and daughters,” and that Genesis 4 describes the descendants of Cain who took to themselves wives (e.g., vv. 19–24).

However, as Wenham rightly observes, Eslinger does not offer a viable explanation for how the wicked Cainites could be called “the sons of God” (Wenham 1987, 140). This interpretation, therefore, appears to be without adequate support and can be dismissed.

Furthermore:

Another view proposed by both John H. Sailhamer and Philip H. Eveson is that Genesis 6:1–4 functions as a summary to the content of chapter 5. As Sailhamer puts it, this brief episode serves as an interlude before the Flood narrative, indicating that the sons and daughters of Adam had multiplied greatly, marrying and continuing to have children (Sailhamer 1990, 76).

 

The passage supposedly tells about nothing out of the ordinary; rather, it indicates that the routines of life went on as usual, as alluded to by Christ in Matthew 24:38–39. The problem was not with what mankind was doing per se, but the way in which he was going about it—that is, in utter disregard of his Creator. As Eveson surmises, “Life at that time went on normally, ‘but in arrogant independence of God’” (Eveson 2001, 152).

Yet, it is invalid to assert, “Life at that time went on normally, ‘but in arrogant independence of God’” in Genesis 6 after Genesis 4:26 notes, “To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.”

Anderson wrote, “some angels punished by being confined and others free to roam the earth (cf. Ephesians 6:11–12)” yet, those vss. state, “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”

Moreover, Jude and 2 Peter 2 state, “the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day” and “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment” note that it is not some of them but all of them.

Anderson counter-argues, “Christ stated in Matthew 22:30 that at the resurrection, the redeemed ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven’…But this passage is not arguing that angels (at least when they appear physically) are sexless or incapable of reproductive functions. Rather, it indicates that marriage (and, by extension, reproduction) is not something in which the holy, heavenly angels participate.”

That is a point I have made many, many times and yet, I take exception to “at least when they appear physically” since they always appear physically since they are ontologically physical.

As Anderson puts it, “it is worth considering that when angels are mentioned in other locations in Genesis (e.g., Genesis 18–19), they appear in human form, they partake in a meal, they are lusted after, and they physically seize people by their hands to drag them out of a doomed city.”

Now we come to the second of only two sentences, verses, regarding Nephilim, as Anderson notes:

It is also objected that the fallen angels view is not necessary to account for the rise of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4, and that the presence of such hybrid offspring before the Flood creates tension with Numbers 13:33, which mentions Nephilim dwelling in the land of Canaan long after the Flood (e.g., Sailhamer 1990, 79).

However, to insist that the Nephilim were not the offspring of the unions described only two verses prior is essentially to sever Genesis 6:4 from the context, leaving the purpose of its content ambiguous. With respect to the later mention of the Nephilim in Numbers 13, it need not be assumed that the Nephilim survived the Flood—which is certainly contrary to the biblical text (Genesis 7:21–23). In view of the fact that the statement in Numbers 13 is from the unfaithful spies who told Israel not to go into the Promised Land, there is reason to suspect that the remark may have been an exaggeration.

Sarna takes this view, saying, “The reference in Numbers is not to the supposedly continued existence of Nephilim into Israelite times; rather, it is used simply for oratorical effect, much as ‘Huns’ was used to designate Germans during the two world wars” (Sarna 1989, 46).

However, in view of the narrator’s explanatory note in Numbers 13:33 (“the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim”), it is perhaps better to suspect that the unsanctioned angel-human relations that were rampant before the Flood continued on a limited scale after the global catastrophe. This would explain the author’s pointed remark in Genesis 6:4 that the Nephilim were on the earth prior to the Flood—“and also afterward.”

It would also explain the grammatical arrangement found in Genesis 6:4, involving the imperfect (יָבֹאוּ) and the perfect preceded by waw (וְיָלְדוּ), which most naturally expresses an event which occurred repeatedly. (The idea, thus, is that the Nephilim arose “whenever” there were sexual unions between humans and fallen angels.) Accordingly, the sin of unsanctioned angel-human relations and the propagation of the Nephilim appears to have continued even after the Flood.

Let us review beginning with that, “Numbers 13:33, which mentions” is a generic manner with which to interact with the narrative since key questions are: who said it, why was it says, what was the reaction to it, etc.

In this case, Anderson (and Sarna) go on to specify that such an assertion, “is from the unfaithful spies” to which I will add: also disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who presented an “evil report” and were rebuked by God—they just concocted a fear-mongering, scare-tactic tall-tale.

That little detail is key because it takes us from it’s in the Bible so it must be true to that what is true is that their deception was recorded—I would go much further then “exaggeration.”

Indeed, it is not a case of, “it need not be assumed that the Nephilim survived the Flood” or somehow returned, I will add, but that it is “contrary to the biblical text (Genesis 7:21–23)” plus Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5.

Anderson quotes N.M. Sarna to the effect of, “The reference in Numbers is not to the supposedly continued existence of Nephilim into Israelite times; rather, it is used simply for oratorical effect, much as ‘Huns’ was used to designate Germans during the two world wars” (Genesis: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989)).

Yet, the unreliable assertion is of having seen Nephilim and not merely referring to non-Nephilim as Nephilim.

Problematically, Anderson still decided to go with what utterly unreliable men asserted with that, “unsanctioned angel-human relations…continued on a limited scale after the global catastrophe” which is something that one must artificially insert into the Bible and implies that God failed and the flood was much of a waste—God meant to be rid of them but missed the loophole whereby they just returned, somehow.

Moreover, one must also invent a way to have them related to Anakim: something, by the way, that does not exist in the Septuagint/LXX version of that verse.

Now, that, “the Nephilim were on the earth prior to the Flood—‘and also afterward’” is something that does not exist in Genesis 6: which is likely why Anderson was forced to only actually quote half a verse.

And it is a case of, “Nephilim arose ‘whenever’ there were sexual unions between humans and fallen angels” but the question is when that was.

Anderson began his article by quoting Genesis 6 and so I will elucidate as per his quote, “it came about, when mankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful. And they took for themselves wives from any they chose…Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—whenever the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, who bore to them children.”

Thus, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—whenever the sons of God went in to the daughters of men” so the question becomes: when were those days?

Well, v. 1 told us, “when mankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them” which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children.

Yet, in any case, the question becomes: when was afterward?

Well, afterward means afterward: they began doing it and continued doing it and yet, the flood brought it to a full and final end.

That was all pre-flood and in fact, the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. after v. 4.

Moreover, Jude and 2 Peter 2 inform us that those Angels who sinned were incarcerated. Now, they do not specify when they were incarcerated but it makes logical and theo-logical sense that since the flood was when God was cleaning house, as it were, then that would have been when they were incarcerated which—besides that He did not fail—is another way to argue against post-flood falls of Angels who just kept right on doing it (for which there is no evidence and in the face of that there is only a one-time fall of Angels).

Anderson notes, “Sailhamer maintains that the sense of הַנְּפִלִמ הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם in Genesis 6:4 suggests that the Nephilim were already present in the land before the unions between ‘the sons of God’ and ‘the daughters of men.’ Likewise, he argues that וְגַם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן אֲשֶׁר requires that the Nephilim could not have been the offspring of the unions described” (J.H. Sailhamer, Genesis: vol. 2 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1990).

Yet, that, “Nephilim were on the earth…whenever the sons of God went in to the daughters of men” implies that they were on the Earth as a result of whenever the sons of God went in to the daughters of men.

Moreover, such a view turns Genesis 6:1-4 into a rather odd narrative in that it, essentially, as the author focusing on the sons of God and daughters of men, their initial attraction, their marriages, their offspring but then artificially inserting Nephilim about whom the author merely notes they were around at the time and saying nothing more. Thus, that would essentially interrupt the narrative for no apparent reason.

Let us now dig into some of Anderson’s footnotes.

He quotes Julius Africanus as regarding what I characterized as the mythology I noted about the entire bloodlines of Seth and Cain, “What is meant by the Spirit . . . is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God on account of the righteous men…the descendants of Cain are named the seed of men, as having nothing divine in them, on account of the wickedness of their race.”

Anderson observes that T.R. Schreiner:

…observes that the Greek word πνεῦμα (“spirit”) when used in the plural almost invariably refers to angels and not to humans. The one exception appears in Hebrews 12:23, but in that instance the context functions to clarify who is in view.

He also points out that the Greek φυλακή (“prison”), while commonly used to indicate a place where humans are imprisoned on earth (e.g., Acts 5:19; 8:3; 2 Corinthians 6:5; 11:23), “is never used to denote a place of punishment for humans after death” (p. 187). Other, less acceptable views on the identity of the “spirits” in 1 Peter 3:18–20 are that they were (1) the departed souls of humans, contemporaries of Noah who perished in the Flood and to whom Christ, during the time between his death and resurrection, preached the message of salvation, or (2) the men of Noah’s day to whom the preincarnate Christ, through Noah, preached salvation [T.R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude: The New American Commentary 37 (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2003].

It is myopic to write in terms of, “the Greek word πνεῦμα (‘spirit’)” since it also refers to wind/breath. Thus, when it, “invariably refers to angels” it is not implying that they are spirits.

As for, “φυλακή (‘prison’)” since the reference was to Jude and 2 Peter 2 then, indeed, it has nothing to do with, “a place of punishment for humans after death” but to what Peter has as Tartarus: the temporary, of whatever duration, place of incarceration.

The view that whom is referenced is, “the departed souls of humans” is odd because it denotes two placed where the dead went pre-Jesus’ sacrifice: a place for those who died pre-flood and a place for those who died post-flood but pre-Jesus and there is no indication of any such a thing: all dead pre-Jesus went to sheol—one of the two compartments in sheol but sheol nevertheless (see my book What Does the Bible Say About Heaven and Hell?: A Styled Superumology and Infernology.

Overall, Anderson did a good job of reviewing the various views but fell for some basic level, and yet key, fallacies regarding Angelology and Nephilology along the way.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Here’s another fun succinct discussion—that puts the fun in dys-fun-ction.
A certain Cas Lewis decided to post the following comment on my Facebook/Meta page:

This Ken guy, he’s what you call an idiot. At least learn grammar, dude. Also, Jesus never existed.

I, True Freethinker, replied:

Good day, I pray I find you well. The statement “This Ken guy, he’s what you call an idiot” is incoherent since it’s a jump to a conclusion of an assertion.
A cogent comment would have been “This Ken guy, he’s what you call an idiot because ____________” and then fill in the blank.
As for “At least learn grammar, dude” well, that’s another of the same issue and, FYI, those of us for whom English is a second language and who suffer form some form of dyslexia prefer empathy but I realize that some people are just saturated with hatred.
As for “Jesus never existed”: since that’s a positive affirmation you must prove it, please do so.

Did you note the irony that when referring to dyslexia I actually wrote “form” rather than “from”?

Cas Lewis replied:

YOU have to prove it.
I get you about your other 2 points, but you have to prove a positive, not a negative.
Just google “Jesus never existed” and you get some interesting information.

True Freethinker:

So, you got caught making an incoherent jump to a conclusion of an assertion, failed to make a cogent comment even when called out on it, and also made a positive affirmation “Jesus never existed” that you’re incapable of proving.
You then say about me, “YOU have to prove it” but how could or would I prove “Jesus never existed” since I don’t believe that?
Just read my three books on historical Jesus issues and you get some interesting information: https://truefreethinker.com/no-end-books-publications

Cas Lewis:

Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, that’s literally how it went and I’m unsure what to make of it other than there are reasons for focusing on issues and not getting emotionally upset.

See my various books here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The video Nephilim Giants AFTER Noah’s Flood? Dr. Michael Heiser has been removed from YouTube but not before I kept track of the following discussion.

Jim noted

Is Dr. Heiser referring to something like the idea of the sexual ritual that produced  ‘offspring’ for pagan deities being performed both before and after the flood, (i.e why Og’s bed was significant,  and the significance of kings spending the night in a bedroom atop the ziggurat structures in Mesopotamia,  etc. )?

Uwe Könnigsstaddt replied

Read his book “The Unseen Realm”

Termi Nation chimed in with

Og’s “bedstead” is the Monolith from 2001 a Space Odyssey .  9:4:1  –   1:4:9

It can be found being hid the building called the Kabba at Mecca, Saudia Arabia.

It is also referred to in the Bible as the Methegammah (Meta Gamma) -2 Samuel 8:1

A certain Read Truth noted

In Galatians Paul talks about some dialogue he had with Peter.  That’s enough for me.

However, I don’t see how Og’s bed has anything to do with anything in Mecca.   That’s…. Maybe a stretch..   but whatever, I’m intrigued.  I’ll look it up.

I, Ken Ammi, noted

That seems to be the current fad. Yet, either way: any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed.

Read Truth

Ken Ammi, that’s fine if you want to believe it that way, I can’t change your mind for you but 2 Chronicles says:

4And after this there arose war with the Philistines at Gezer. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Sippai, who was one of the descendants of the giants, and the Philistines were subdued. 5And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. 6And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants. 7And when he taunted Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David’s brother, struck him down. 8These were descended from the giants in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

And that account lends credibility to the account of the spies that were afraid to take the land (and why were they afraid?  Obviously something was making them hesitant to go into a lush land full of resources).  Just because they had a bad attitude, doesn’t mean they lied about their report.  In fact, the very presence of giants in the historical writings of the Bible give full credence to their report.

So go ahead and lump the Chronicles and the books of Kings into the same category as the report in Numbers.  Just don’t believe any of it.  Or choose to believe it.  I can’t choose for you.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’ve been discussing “post-flood Nephilim” but by appealing to 2 Chronicles your directing me to a text about Rephaim, not Nephilim.

Thus, that does utterly noting to lending “credibility to the account of the spies that were afraid to take the land” but then you inserted the word “giants” so I can no longer follow to what you’re referring.

Indeed, “Just because they had a bad attitude, doesn’t mean they lied about their report” but we know they did lie because the made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all.

Thus, if you want to demand post-flood Nephilim, your forced to rely exclusively on guys who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible—and you have to misapply texts that never refer to Nephilim.

I have no idea what you mean by “go ahead and lump the Chronicles and the books of Kings into the same category as the report in Numbers.”

Ken Ammi

Friend, you jumped from the specific Hebrew word N”ephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined English one “giants.”

I’m unaware of any “ritual worship necessary to produce ‘nephilim'” but that in that way they “could simply be reproduced post-flood” still implies that God failed.

Please understand that 1. in English Bibles “giants” doesn’t imply anything about height and 2. it’s used to render two words “Nephilim” and “Rephaim.”

Thus, “David and his men hunted down the last” Rephaim–and they’re utterly unrelated to Nephilim.

Jim

I’m referring to the cultic practice in Mesopotamia which is believed to have taken place in the room atop the temple structure.  Other cultures also had (some still have) very similar practices. The ritual union between kings (sometimes already considered a demigod) and priestesses, or other temple personnel thought to be embodiments of the deity at hand, has been used to explain why some Mesopotamian culture heroes could be conceived as 2/3 god, 3/4 god etc., having been the offspring of such ‘mixed’ unions. So I was proposing that these “giants” could also be produced any time this belief system emerged.

Ken Ammi

Indeed, I’m aware of the cultic practice—and appealing to such is the latest fad in pop-Nephilology—yet, my point was, “I’m unaware of any ‘ritual worship necessary to produce ‘nephilim’” but that in that way they ‘could simply be reproduced post-flood’ still implies that God failed.”

So yea, “is believed” good qualifying term, “to have taken place…” and “could also,” another good qualifier.

I’m just pointing out that there’s no indication of any of that occurring post-flood and also that biblically, we’re told of good ol’ fashioned marriages, not rituals, even if between strange bed fellows.

Ooooooh, here’s something that just occurred to me based on that I think that pre-Tower of Babel commonly known and shared history came to be called myth and legend when humanity dispersed: such Pagan tales of such rituals are based on cultural memories of the Gen 6 affair, they were, in the own and corrupted Pagan ways, the affair (even if not really but only seemingly).

Ron Clark

Rob Skiba: HIs death was a tragedy

R.I.P.

I believe Rob had a change  in theology when it comes to this old idea as described, and rightly so.,

There is a nuance or subtle bias implication   with the wives ( Hams wife) being a carrier of the Nephilim DNA. With Ham being the supposed  progenitor of the black race, then his offspring (all) are alleged to be the carriers of the Nephilim gene. And the narrative  among todays evangelicals is that anyone  with fallen angel DNA  allegedly (mostly black people), can’t be saved; and are evil and likely savages because of the bad angel connection with Ham’s wife.

The  connection with is with Nimrod; The son of Cush, the son of Ham and therefore a great-grandson of Noah This mindset for many is justification of  behavior, the very least is well below what Jesus taught about, the righteous, attitude and behavior towards your neighbor; the Samaritan?

It’s a bit ridiculous to think that YHWH is so  sloppy or careless in his grand effort to  save humanity, to  save a pure family, that  the supposed  sneaky black family tricked him and got through.

But the Bible also says: “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).

The Torah and Tanakh and the Gospels and epistles  in no way implies that only the descendants of two sons of Noe  will be saved.

The Just Shall Live by Faith: Habakkuk 2:4

Romans 1:17 – “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”

Galatians 3:11 – “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.”

Hebrews 10:38 – “Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, My soul shall have no pleasure in him.”

Ken Ammi

Yes, Skiba (RIP) merely asserted as much because he needed to literally just invent a way to get Nephilim past the flood–which implies that God failed, BTW, since He missed that loophole.

A certain In My Opinion_ chimed in with

and how did God fail when He allowed them to come back and do it again?     Where does it say that other Watchers, after seeing what happened to the first group, came back and committed the same crime again?   There are only two possibilities.   Either they came back, but smaller, through Noah’s sons, or they came back and took human women again, which is even less likely as the offspring would once again be gigantic compared to say, Goliath.   I suppose there is a third possibility. That some of the fallen ones took some of the nephilim and proteced them during the flood.    That also seems unlikely.

Ken Ammi

That begs the question: what makes you think that God allowed them to come back and do it again?

You also beg the question: what makes you think that “other Watchers…came back [it wouldn’t be “back” if it’s a different group] and committed the same crime again?”?

Here’s a third possibility, actually this is the biblical view: the one and only reason to think that there’s ever been any such thing as post-flood Nephilim is one single verse within an “evil report” by guys whom God rebuked.

Thus, there’s zero reason to believe them and zero reason to assert post-flood Nephilim.

In My Opinion_

You mean no reason other than they existed???     “There were giants in the earth in those days, and after….”    Goliath and Og of Bashan by name plus all the other reports of actual giants rin the last few centuries.    Enmity between the two seeds?   You are literally in such deep denial that I don’t know what to say.

Ken Ammi

I’m unsure what you mean, you say “You mean no reason other than they existed???” but we agree they, Nephilim, existed. I noted, “the one and only reason to think that there’s ever been any such thing as POST-FLOOD Nephilim is one single verse within an ‘evil report’ by guys whom God rebuked. Thus, there’s zero reason to believe them and zero reason to assert POST-FLOOD Nephilim.”

You then quote a segment of a verse so I’m unsure why you did so, “There were giants in the earth in those days, and after….”

You then list “Goliath and Og of Bashan” but my context is discussing Nephilim but they were both Rephaim.

Thus, I haven’t been discussing subjectively unusual height—which seems to me what you mean by “giants” (even though “giants” in your English Bible implies nothing about height at all).

Enmity between the two seeds: those how do God’s will vs. those who don’t?

Now, rather than getting worldly on me, just keep sharpening iron with iron but just be sure you consider the context and the terminology.

Doug Michalak

I’m really grateful for Mike Heiser, and for all the work he has done to bring the Watchers narrative forward again into our consciousness. It helps us understand pieces of the Scripture that have been lost to us for centuries because the Jewish leadership wanted to further hide the role of Jesus the Messiah as the cloud rider, the King of the Universe, and the unique Son of the Most High God (I believe it was Origen that said many books were taken out of the Bible by the non-Messianic Jews in their hatred of Jesus). But it’s clear that Mike is intending to keep this knowledge in the realm of academia, and so with some of these questions, he’s really having to dance around the issue to keep the subject at just enough distance to prevent it from becoming too weird. You know, the Book of Jubilees tells us that all the animals spoke one language, and that on the day Adam sinned, God shut the mouths of all creatures except for man. How did these animals speak, when we know the majority of them don’t even possess the material infrastructure to form words? I don’t know. But I’m willing to believe that somehow that was possible. So I do believe the serpent spoke, and that’s why Eve didn’t think it was weird. We assume that because we’re observing a condition in our world now, it must have always been that way. That’s a false assumption. I looked at Greek mythology about the understanding of the ‘Gigas’; the word is certainly translated as giant, but it’s not limited to the definition of a large person. It can also be the equivalent of a ‘superman’. Hercules was depicted as just such a Nephilim—regularly human sized, but with super strength. Perhaps some had super-intelligence. Why don’t we see Nephilim here as big giants—or even monsters like the Titans? I don’t know. Certainly some of them in the past were. But maybe now there are still some, but they are limited in size. Why don’t we see giant turtles, rats, or dragonflies any more, when we have fossilized evidence that they once existed? Creation scientists have many theories about this, including that a different climate allowed for creatures to reach a bigger size. So, let’s not shy away from this stuff. Let’s simply be honest and say that we know what we know, and we don’t know what we don’t know.

Ken Ammi

A few things, if I may, just because Dr. Heiser is credentialed, qualified and experienced—and a cool guy—does not make him infallible. For example, he teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible does not.

That “Jubilees tells us that all the animals spoke” primarily means that millennia after the Torah was written, someone made a claim.

Now, “the serpent spoke” but “Eve didn’t think it was weird” because it was not an actual reptile, the word used for snake/serpent is one that shares roots with divination and shining metal and Revelation chaps. 12 and 20 make it crystal clear that Satan, Devil, serpent, and dragon all refer to the same thing, the same being.

Well said, Gigas, or gigantes, is actually not “translated as giant” but is rendered as such and it’s not just the case that “it’s not limited to the definition of a large person” but that since it means “earth-born,” it has nothing to do with unusual height at all—only the modern usage of it has had it imply any such thing.

Since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then we cannot know what size they were or even if they were of “super strength”: they became mighty and of renown but we are not told how or why.

Bad Moonshine

I like Mike also. What do you think about the theory that animals spoke spiritually. Meaning that they spoke kinda telepathically as the spirits do. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost the light that came from them (so they needed clothing), and they also lost connection to the spirit world so they could no longer hear the animals.

Some believe that the Earth`s atmosphere changed drastically after the flood, preventing animals from growing past a certain point.

Doug Michalak @Bad Moonshine

Perhaps! Whatever it was, I believe they could communicate. I agree with you about the climate, too…

Ken Ammi @Bad Moonshine

I’ve no view on any of that speculation.

Djarfur

I mean, The giant inhabitants of Canaan during the conquest and Goliath were most likely Nephilim. A human body can’t function while being as big as they were.

Ken Ammi

A few issues, if I may, friend:

You’re using the vague, generics, subjective, and multi-usage English word “giant” unlike the English Bibles use it: you mean subjectively unusual height but English Bibles are just rendering (not even translating) either “Nephilim” or “Rephaim.”

There’s no indication Goliath was nor even could be a Nephil, and it’s specified that he was a Repha.

The Masoretic has him at just shy of 10 ft. but the earlier LXX and earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Josephus have him at just shy of 7 ft.

But you seem to appeal to him due to his height but since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then we can’t correlate anyone to them based on height.

Sadly, that’s were the discussion ended.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

To the video 10 of Evolution’s Craziest Theories, I, Ken Ammi, commented:

After over a century of demanding that dinosaurs never live with humans, Atheist evolutionists now demand that dinosaurs have lived with humans all along.

A certain teuelin replied:

Yeah it’s called science.  We observe the world around us, hypothesize to attempt to explain, test, peer review, repeat.

Reality is complicated and we learn more about it every day.  The fact we are hungry for knowledge and want to learn more and better understand the world of the past, present and future is not a negative.  Science and our understanding of our world is not set in stone like your good book is.

teuelin followed up thusly:

Disregard my original statement.  There is absolutely no scientific basis for his claim.  I thought there was some new landmark discovery of some strange dinosaur remnant like a huge crocodile or something that cohabitated with us for a bit, overlapping.

Instead it’s just a straw man like everything on this list.  Arguments from ignorance and straw men.

Ken Ammi:

So are we supposed to believe whatever Atheist evolutionists tell us du jour even if the next day they say the exact opposite? You seem to imply that adhering to “science,” such as basing our views on it is a universal imperative but you don’t say how or why on your worldview.

Are you an Atheist? If so then how could you appeal to “Reality” since in that case, reality would be accidental, as would our ability to discern it, there’s be no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it which would discredit your comment.

Likewise, if that’s the case then “fact” refer to an accident that that “we are hungry for knowledge” is also accidental.

The scientific methods is premised on my “good book.”

teuelin:

Adhere to the scientific method.  Everything on the list was either an argument from ignorance or a straw man.  As we gain more knowledge our understanding changes and that is not a problem.

I am an atheist,  have a good one 👍

P.S. It doesn’t matter how reality sprang into existence.  It doesn’t change anything.  Odd statement that there would be no universal imperative if it randomly sprang into existence.  Doesn’t logic.

Ken Ammi:

Note that you demanded that I “Adhere to the scientific method” but just because you say so?

The issue is not that “As we gain more knowledge our understanding changes” but that, as I noted, “how could you appeal to ‘Reality’ since in that case, reality would be accidental, as would our ability to discern it, there’d be no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it which would discredit your comment.”

Now, you sort of touch upon that when you write, “It doesn’t matter how reality sprang into existence.  It doesn’t change anything” but it does, it changes everything since on your worldview adhering to reality is just an emotively subjective personal preference du jour based on hidden assumptions (I already elucidated this).

Why say “Odd statement that there would be no universal imperative if it randomly sprang into existence” since what you subjectively find odd is not a standard and that’s just a half-though: odd ergo what? But you say “Doesn’t logic” and it’s the same issue as with reality: on your worldview logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it which would discredit your comment.

“Doesn’t logic” is a jump to a conclusion without an argument (of course, that’s not a problem on Atheism).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that ended that as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.