Discussing “When atheists slam Genesis without reading it!”

The following discussion ensued due to the video When atheists slam Genesis without reading it!

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.

For more details, see my relevant books.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.