Not necessarily. We have a number of "concepts" which we know to exist - as it were - but they do so through the absence of something else. For instance - we measure heat. We define "cold" as the variance of a lack of heat, however - "cold", by "definition" (as it were) does not exist. Black is tha absence of color. White is the combiniation of all color. We can "come close" to black, but we cannot prove it's existance through tangable means. Darkness, too - is the absence of light.

We know what these terms refer to - but they are defined by the quantifable absence of their "opposites". They essentially "exist" through the non-existance of another "object". (For lack of a better word)

However - since you were not around at the time of creation, I'm not sure how you can support your argument. You're viewpoint is merely an expression of extrapolating your present observation back in time with the presumption that what occurs today in the creation - has always occured, exactly the way you see it. It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this is in fact not the case - so your conclusion is built on a sand foundation of unacceptable premises.

Oh please.

Talk about something being built on sand.

The entire biblical doctine is nothing but quicksand.

You claim that I wasn't there at the beginning so my view doesn't hold.

Yet neither were you there at the beginning so your view doesn't hold either.

That's a moot arguement.

We know for a fact from science that nature was a dog-eat-dog world long before mankind came onto the scene.

Unless you want to deny the evidence of the physical world. But that would require that you claim that God planted false evidence.

But then you have a God who purposefully deceives.

What it comes down to is whether we should believe an extremely conflicting book that we know to have been written by a very barbaric male-chuavinistic society. Or whether we should beleive our own experience.

Personally I would rather believe our own experience than to believe a bunch of male-chauvinists who demand that we have all fallen from grace from a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices.

I personally feel that the scientific approach to understanding reality is on far more solid ground than believing an ancient mythology that has more hole than Swiss Cheese.

Do you realize that the same people who wrote the Bible are the same people who had Jesus nailed to a pole?

Do you realize that even Jesus himself denounced the ways of the Old Testament?

Where's the solid ground in any of that?

If evil exists the arument in the OP holds, no matter how evil itself came to be.



Good to see you Eljay!

I wasn't discussing the bible - I was discussion YOUR argument, which is merely subjective, unprovable, and unlikely since you have no premises that are remotely acceptable.

Don't attempt to prove yourself right by pointing to an unrelated topic and attepting to tear that down. That does nothing to legitimize your point.

You're just trying to divorce the issues into a matter of personal opinions which is absurd.

It is the Bible that claims that God saw that it was good when the Earth was created.

It's is observation of the physical universe that shows us that the Earth was not good prior to the arrival of man onto the scene.

How does this refuce my argument to merely being subjective or unprovable. Why would you suggest that my premises are not remotely acceptable?

The entire Biblical version of God is entirely based on subjective unproveable premises.

In fact, I hold that our observations of the real world have actually proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the Biblical premise are indeed FALSE.

That can't be said the other way around.

You want to dismiss observations made of the real world by appealing to the subjective claims of the ignorant men who make up the biblical mythology.

But they've been shown to be wrong.

What makes you think you can claim that the authors of the Bible aren't standing on sand, yet you are so ready to dismiss actual obeservations of reality as having no foundation?

This isn't about Abra versus Eljay and who's opinions hold water.

This is about observations of reality versus a clearly made up mythology that has no basis in reality whatsoever.



As humans are we interested in the TRUTH of our existence, or are we merely interested in supporting unfounded mythologies that were written by a crude and rude male-chauvinistic superstitious ancient society?

The flaws and inconsistencies in their stories are overywhelming.

Where do you get off suggesting that thier stories are based on anything more than quicksand?

And if you aren't relying on their stories for your information, then how is your subjective guess that the world was perfect in the beginning founded on anything more than sand?

And like CS says, how would that help with the questions that Epicuras raises anyway.

You refuse to deny the existence of evil, yet you appeal to some vague loophole that does nothing more than try to deny absolute evil just to dismiss the questions of Epicuras.

I'd say that you are not only standing on sand, but you're sinking very quickly.


Let me just summarize here:



Well if you aren't relying on the biblical stories for your information, then how is your subjective guess that the world was perfect in the beginning founded on anything more than sand?

How can you begin with biblical premises and pretend that you aren't talking about the Bible?

I believe the scriptures say in the begining it was good. Adam & Eve were in Eden. No storms, disasters, earthquakes, etc. Naked and not ashamed. They had each other and all they needed. The weather and struggles for mankind are part of the punishment for sin it suggests after Satan tempted Eve and she broke God's only request of her and caused Adam to do the same. Damn you Satan!

Maybe this is not what you are referring to.

This is my understanding of the gest of the Biblical story. It blames man for being the cause of all imperfections.

As far as I'm concerned this ancient myth as been proven to be false.

Just like we proved Greek Mythology to be false by showing that there are no gods living on Mt. Olympia, now we have shown that the Bible is false by having shown that death, disease, and all many of disasters have always existed long before mankind came onto the scene.

We have PROVEN that the Bible is false as far as I'm concenrned. It's a done deal.

They say that's it's impossible to prove there is no God, that may be true, but we can show where ancient mythologies are false. And therefore they could not possibly be the word of any just and righteous God because a just and righteous God wouldn't lie.

The description of 'God' itself is all that is truly in question regarding the OP. The determinants themselves are man-made. To say that the OP refutes the existence of 'God' is to place absolute certainty in the translation of man, which is what is in question.

In simple terms :

In the beginning, God created a perfect world

where man and beast got along beautifully

where animals only ate vegetation

and there was no killing of each other.


But then sin entered into the picture

thus causing death to also enter the picture

and sin not only affected man

but affected aninmals also

and the whole earth begin to die

and has been dyign ever since

til God one day will restore all.


And when God does.....sin will be no more

because man will be once more restored to his rightful place

with God

and will rule and reign with God

in that day when there will be no more night

and the lion will lie down with the lamb.... once more.


But until that day comes ,

we can already have a little bit of the Kingdom of God on earth

right now....

WHEN we accept Christ....and become born of God.

EXACTLY!

This is indeed the Biblical myth!

This is why we now know that it is indeed a myth.

It has now been shown to be every bit as false as Greek Mythology.

We now know that animals did indeed eat each other all along, and certainly long before mankind even came onto the scene.

Thus the Biblical myth must necessarily be false.

End of Story.

Well I don't know if I would agree with that Micheal. I think that all comes down to how you define God.

If God is not a judgemental God, then who's to say what's 'evil'?

There are only TWO possibly critera that we can draw on in order to claim that something is evil.

1. We don't like it.

2. It's against God's will.

When we see a crocodile eat a human baby we scream, "Oh God! What an evil atrocity!"

But from the crocodile's point of view its thinking, "Oh God! Thank's for that wonderful snack!"

Evil is relative and totally subjective in that case. And in that sense it doesn't even exist at all.

So the questions of Epicuras only apply to a God that passes judgements.

Maybe what we consider to be horrific is not so horrific in God's eyes at all. We shun death. Why would God shun death? If God knows that we are ultimately spirit and can't die then, to God, the very concept of death is meaningless.

The only think we are left with in that case is our reaction to these things.

1. Emotional Pain
2. Physical Pain

Emotional pain is entirely subjective. We create our own emotional pain by passing judgements on what we see.

And if there is a God, then our children aren't even ours anyway. All living beings are children of God. If someone you love is hurt or dies that affect your emotional pain. But if someone you never knew dies, you're not affected by that hardly at all. Emotional pain is entirely subjective.

Phsyical pain would be the only think left to deal with. One could argue that God has built in safeguards against allowing anyone to experience more physical pain than they can endure. (i.e. the human body goes into shock and the person passes out or becomes numb to the situation), or they die, which to God is laughable, because there is no such thing as death. Death is an illusion.

So I think there are concepts of "God" that can exist without acknowleding the concept of "Evil" at all.

But clearly that God can't be a judgmental God who will punish "Evil-doers". That would make no sense because that would require that absolute evil exists and then you're back to square one.

So there could exist an all-loving God who's love is truly unconditional. Everyone is loved by God in the end no matter what they've done in this life.

Then there is no such thing as "Evil", but instead all that exists are things that makes us squimish.

Epicuras doesn't deny God, he simply denies a Judgmental God that could thwart what we percieve to be "evil" but refuses to do it.

Abra wrote....

" We now know that animals did indeed eat each other all along, and

certainly long before mankind even came onto the scene..."

False.

End of story.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

Clearly in Xianity, their G-d created evil and darkness and I still need to thank Him for that evil woman I ran into last weekend.

And TBRich ,I would suggest that you do a thorough study of

the use of the word "evil" thruout scripture.

You will find the use of the word "evil" here in this particular scripture ,

has a different meaning from the word "evil" mentioned

thruout the rest of scripture.

Same applies to the use of the word " hate" thruout scripture.


The Word of God has to be PROPERLY STUDIED AND RIGHTLY DIVIDED....

IN ORDER TO BE RIGHTLY INTERPRETED !!!!!

Or ELSE...as said so many times before....

PEOPLE WILL MAKE THE WORD OF GOD SAY ANY OLE THING THEY WANT IT TO!!!!!

Creation Science Issues
Death Before the Fall of Man
By Greg Neyman
© Answers in Creation
First Published 28 January 2003
(This article can be freely copied and distributed, as long as it is unaltered and a link back to the original article appears on the page)


Young earth creation science advocates have long argued against the occurrence of death before the fall of man. There are actually two issues that we must deal with here. The primary issue is that there was or was not death before sin. The second issue is...did Adam and Eve's sin bring the punishment of physical death.



First, we will deal with the issue of animal death prior to sin. This mistaken doctrine stems from two verses in the Bible. The first is Genesis 1:29-30, which states,

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, where-in there is life, I have given every green herb for meat; and it was so."

Yes, the Bible says that God gave the green plants to all animals to eat. This is a completely true statement. Adam and the animals could eat the plants for food. However, nowhere does the Bible say that animals "cannot" eat meat. There was no general prohibition against meat. However, it's not that simple a matter. One must also consider the location where God spoke these words.

God was addressing Adam within the Garden of Eden, which was a unique, special place. Eden was paradise, where there was no death, and where animals got along with each other. It is clear from Scripture that God created this Garden to be different from the rest of the world.

Some young earth creationists have argued that the entire world was originally created perfect and free from death. However, if this was true, then why did God plant a Garden, and place man in it? The Scriptures are clear that the Garden was separate and distinct from the rest of the world. We have no reason to suspect that there was no death outside of the Garden.

Also, nowhere does the Bible claim that there was no animal death before sin…it is inferred from the Genesis text and this verse, Romans 5:12, which states,

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

When Adam sinned, he did indeed introduce physical death (through his expulsion from paradise) for humanity. However, this verse has nothing to do with animal death prior to sin. There are several other good reasons for the existence of animal death prior to man's sin.



Genesis 2:17 is God's direct instructions to Adam. God told Adam...

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Using a common, literal interpretation, when Adam ate the fruit, he should have died physically that day. Did Adam die the same day he ate the fruit? No, he did not. There are three possibilities. First, God lied to Adam. We know that God cannot lie, so this cannot be the case.

There are two other possible alternatives from which you must choose. The first is that God did not mean physical death at all, but spiritual. When Adam ate the fruit, he sinned, which caused separation between him and God, or spiritual death. The other alternative is that although the sin did not bring about instant death, it did bring about gradual death, making man susceptible to death. Adam and Eve, by their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, became vulnerable to death. Another viable alternative is that Adam did die that day. A day to God is different than a day for us. The six creation days were millions of years long. After the creation, God entered His rest...the seventh day, and we are still in that day. Thus, Adam and Eve died on the seventh day.



Ecosystem


Apparently, young earth creation science experts are a little weak when it comes to understanding the ecosystem and the food chain. God designed nature to be self-renewing. As creatures die, their remains decompose, and nourish the plants. As the plants grow, they are eaten by the animals. The animals are killed by predators, and what is not eaten is left to decompose to nourish the insects and plants, and the cycle starts all over. This IS the way God designed nature. There is no reason to believe this process was different prior to sin. The creation was made to "perfectly" renew itself through this process.



Another reason to consider is animal design. If God never intended carnivores to eat meat, then He would have designed them differently. For example, lions with molar teeth for chewing plants. A lion, with sharp teeth for killing, is not an efficient creation for the processing of plant matter. Therefore, God’s design is flawed, because He intended the lion to eat plants, but equipped it for killing. If you believe in young earth creation science, then you MUST believe in a flawed creation!



With that said, let's examine a few creatures of God's creation that proves there was death before Adam's Fall.



Spiders, Snakes, and Venom


Spiders are wondrous creatures. They spin their silk webs in order to ensnare their victims before consuming them. How would they have survived in a pre-death world? Would their webs have been used to catch falling leaves? No, they could just simply go into a tree, or to the ground, to feast on the leaves. Spiders were created with only one diet in mind...a dead insect.

Also, why were some spiders created as venomous? What is the purpose of this venom? They didn't need this venom to subdue the leaves, or whatever else they were supposed to eat in the Garden. And, it could not have been for self-defense, since there were no predators in the Garden? In fact, the same thing goes for venomous snakes. Venom only has one purpose...to kill. Even venoms that incapacitate are for the same thing in the end, for once the creature is incapacitated, it is consumed.

The only logical conclusion is that God created venomous creatures to kill their prey. Venom serves no purpose in a calm, friendly Garden with no death. If God did create venom, according to the young earth model, then His creation was not perfect, as the venom served no purpose.



Venus Fly Trap


I'm sure everyone has seen one of these carnivorous plants. Before the fall of man, did it catch falling leaves? It certainly could not have evolved this trait after the Garden.

Other plants that eat insects are the Sundew and the Pitcher Plant. These plants live in wet places, where there is poor nitrogen content in the soil. The plants get the nitrogen they need from the insects.



Bats


Bats feed off of flying insects. Before the Fall, did they use their natural radar to catch falling leaves and eat them?

The previous three examples list insect-eating organisms. Many young earth creationist organizations now teach that insects do not fall in the category of "nephesh creatures." Their current teaching is that death before sin only applied to these nephesh creations.1 This term is generally applied to land-dwelling creations, which Adam named in Genesis 2:19. By picking and choosing the type of creatures this "no death before sin" rule applies to, young earth creationists avoid problems such as insect and micro-organism death. The "nephesh rule" of interpretation allows them to ignore clear evidence that insects died before the Fall.



Sea Lions, Seals, and Walrus (and Penguins)


All of these marine mammals feed on fish. To get around this argument, young earth creationists could again claim that fish are not "nephesh creatures," since they were not named by Adam.



This list could go on for many pages. But, I'm sure you get the point already. There was clearly death before sin. Young earth creationists resort to the "nephesh" rule in order to avoid any problems, picking and choosing which creatures are truly "nephesh" and which ones are not. Naturally, if the evidence for an organism's death contradicts the young earth view, the organism is said to be non-nephesh.



Conclusion


According to the young earth creation science, there is no death before sin. However, why did God create creatures designed specifically for killing? God is perfect, and his creatures in the Garden would have been created perfectly to fit into the ecosystem. Venom has no purpose but to kill. According to the young-earth model, the "perfect" animal created by God would not need venom. Yet venom exists. Young earth creationism cannot explain this.

This is not so much an issue of old earth / young earth, as it is about biblical interpretation. This debate stems from their inaccurate assumptions that "death before sin" equates to animal physical death as well as human physical death.



1 answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bad_things.asp



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.



Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.

Imageorgiagirl....just like you before shared that God created

adam and eve on the eightt day after God rested on the seventh

day (which is totally false and unscriptural)....

Some of this info on this website you shared , is ALSO INCORRECT

and NOT scriptural.

Sorry.

There was NO death before sin entered in.

Before sin entered in , God created a perfect world.

Sadly,although some of the websites contain some truth,

there is also ERROR mixed in , on a lot of websites today.


That's why, when it comes to seeking biblical answers, it is

always Best to go straightt to the Word of God, and not some website.

This is precisely the arguments of religious people.

If something disagrees with their mythology they just proclaim it to be false and call that the end of the story.

But any and all religions could be supported with those kind of empty arguments.

Greek Mythology is true! End of Story!

The Moon Goddess is real! End of Story!

Wanka Tanka created the universe! End of Story!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is God! End of Story!

These aren't arguments. They're just denial craved in stone.

This is nothing more than a COMPLETE CONFESSION that the Biblical story has no more merit than anything else.

It's true because we say so! End of Story!

Just IGNORE the FACTS of the REAL WORLD!

We don't want to hear it!

We AREN'T LISTENING! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!!!

They run around the room holding their hands over their ears to block out TRUTH!

And thus stands that state of human religion to date.

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:17–18).

In the begining....."God Saw That It Was Good".....

was spoken over Everything

God created.

NO death was mentioned or found ANYWHERE in scripture,

BEFORE adam and even were tempted .

ONLy when adam and eve were tempted and fell, did sin and death then enter into the world.



And when adam and eve sinned, INSTANT SPIRITUL DEATH came for adam and eve....and a gradual physical death followed...

not only for man but for all the earth and all its creation.

The whole earth and all its creation has been slowly dying(devolving) ever since.

Simply put....Sin causes death.