Does the rebuilt barn have every single piece of wood reassembled in exactly the same place and order as would be the case with a bike or weight bench?

Have the original nails been used?

Even if so, that still wouldn't make it the original barn.

If I saw the "old" barn in a different location I would be unlikely to assume it is the original barn since barns do not typically move.

I would be much more inclined to assume a new barn was constructed from materials derived from the old barn.

Also at what point in time did the old barn become the new barn to allow for the newly-constructed barn to become the old barn?

Both barns are essentially different to the original barn built so many years before that neither barn can now be recognised as the original barn.

I happen to be married to a curator at a museum and your thought is in fact a very concrete dilemma in some situations. This museum has an old windmill which has been renovated repeatedly over the years. Now they still have one(!) piece of wood from the original mill but the rest is replaced. The museum still says the mill is from 1700-whatever, but is it really?

Have the original nails been used? >

Yes, they have. All of the original material has been used.

<If I saw the "old" barn in a different location I would be unlikely to assume it is the original barn since barns do not typically move.>

Houses are moved too. It happens. Therefore, this is not an objection.

<I would be much more inclined to assume a new barn was constructed from materials derived from the old barn.>

Not if it looked the same.

<Both barns are essentially different to the original barn built so many years before that neither barn can now be recognised as the original barn.>

You keep repeating this bald assertion, but all of the reasons you gave have been refuted, whether it was time, location, if it were a thing that was intended to move etc...

But to bring this back around, yes, the same nails and all other original material has been used and the barn looks the same as it always has.

Just like the weight bench. We took the weight bench apart, drove it somewhere and then 20 years later put it together again with all the same parts. Same bench.

I happen to be married to a curator at a museum and your thought is in fact a very concrete dilemma in some situations. This museum has an old windmill which has been renovated repeatedly over the years. Now they still have one(!) piece of wood from the original mill but the rest is replaced. The museum still says the mill is from 1700-whatever, but is it really?>

Excellent example! Yes, this is a fun, old philosophical question that explores the nature of essences. It's not at all easy to come to a decision one way or the other.

<<Bergson> is interesting for his theory on "la durée", that is reality can be described as a "flow of consciousness" where Time is not a definite measure. Not surprisingly, his thoughts coincided with the Theory of Relativity, and I believe in the end Bergson gave up on a scientific explanation on the concept of time and left it to the physicists.>

I believe in the A-theory of time, tensed time, which Einstein presupposes in his special theory of relativity, even though he is basically arguing that time is relative. I will have to check out some of Bergson's writings.

There is no barn:

The era of the prophets is over. We have His word in complete form now. That is enough.

What does it mean to manage the planet? God has given us a means to eternal salvation. Isn't that enough?

Your question is really another way of asking about the Problem of Evil. If God exists then why is their evil in the world, and evil can mean suffering too.

The short answer is the the existence of evil is evidence that God exists.

That's a good question!

Perhaps in conjunction with BP's Philosophical thought of the week, someone could run a Theological thought of the week?

If I decide to re-up I might consider doing something like that on my forum.

Anyway, I don't agree with BP. We still have prophets and they are still rejected today as they were in biblical times.

In terms of managing the planet, that's up to us. We're not robots. We can choose between good and evil.

The evidence is found in the weight of logic and reason.

It starts with this basic contention:

There is good evidence that theism is true, but there is not comparable evidence that atheism is true. One could say that there are no good reasons to think that atheism is true. That doesn't mean that theism is true, but both sides need arguments, evidence and reasons to justify their positive claims. There are, after all, two competing positive claims to knowledge in this debate:

1. Theism is true
2. Atheism is true

Since there are zero reasons to think that atheism is true, zero arguments that atheism is true and zero evidence that atheism is true, all we have to do is give good, logical, reasoned arguments that theism is true. Then, with all the weight on one side of the scale, a rational person is justified in thinking that theism is the more plausible worldview.

Arguments for theism:

1. The Kalam Cosmological argument
2. The Moral Argument
3. The Fine-Tuning Argument
4. The Argument from Contingency
5. The Ontological Argument
6. The Argument from the Historical facts surrounding the life, crucifixion, buried, death and post mortem appearances of the risen Christ. 7. The Applicability of Mathematics to Nature
8. The Argument from Intentionality of Conscious States 9. The Argument from Religious Experience

Each of these arguments have premises that are more plausibly true than their negations. Therefore, it is rational to accept the conclusions of these arguments and irrational to deny them.

Therefore, because all of the evidence is on one side (theism), it's rational to think that God exists and irrational to deny it.

Put simply: there are reasons to think theism is true but there are no reasons to think atheism is true.

Note: even if one refutes all of these arguments for theism, that still isn't an argument for the truth of atheism. Atheism still needs arguments and evidence. If the atheist doesn't provide such arguments but successfully refutes all of these theistic arguments, he must accept being plucked from his atheist position and resettled in the middle in his new agnostic position. A huge move toward theism!

Please note: Once the atheist has been moved to agnosticism, he must accept this premise: "It is possible that God exists"

Once he accepts that premise, he is vulnerable to the Ontological Argument.

Nobody has taken a picture or heard from God or even from the supernatural.

Because of the answer I gave above. There are good reasons to believe that God exists but no reasons to believe the atheism is true.

< God has not talked to me. God has not addressed the world.
I don't see or hear him>

My consciousness has not talked to you.
My consciousness has not addressed the world.
You do not see or hear my consciousness.

Yet you believe that my consciousness exists.

In terms of the worth of suffering, suffering often leads people to God. It's the absence of suffering that leads people astray, which is why we should thank God even for our troubles.>

He wants to know why God doesn't just make it obvious to everyone on earth, by some grand gesture, that he exists and is in charge and that this is what he wants everyone to do.

It would be so much easier that way.

Even the prophets of old desired this:

"Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down,
that the mountains would tremble before you!
As when fire sets twigs ablaze
and causes water to boil,
come down to make your name known to your enemies
and cause the nations to quake before you!

- Isaiah 64:1-2

Why God doesn't just do that is a mystery.

<Big Pawn> puts forward credible evidence from theistic philosophy but for most people this is not enough. It's too intellectual.

Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Peter van Inwagen.

I refer you to this page on William Lane Craig's site.

He wants to know why God doesn't just make it obvious to everyone on earth, by some grand gesture, that he exists and is in charge and that this is what he wants everyone to do.>

I think a lot of people, in fact most people, would say that God's existence is obvious. I think that people who deny that God exists actually think that God exists and they are just lying to themselves.

<Why God doesn't just do that is a mystery. >

It's not a mystery because God has done that. Look at all the signs and wonders he did for Israel during the Exodus. The more signs he gave them, the less faith they had. Same with Pharaoh, who hardened his heart 10 times despite all the miracles. Same with Israel after the resurrection and the thousands of miracles that Jesus performed, including healing the lame, the blind and raising the dead.

This just goes to show that it's true that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God."

<<Big Pawn> puts forward credible evidence from theistic philosophy but for most people this is not enough. It's too intellectual.>

Yes, it's on the intellectual side, but only those hiding from God in their intellect would raise those kinds of issues anyhow. Most people think that God's existence is obvious without overthinking it. They don't need convincing.

<Like <SugarDom>, many people can only see the suffering and chaos and it doesn't seem to make sense.>

I think a lot of people, in fact most people, would say that God's existence is obvious. I think that people who deny that God exists actually think that God exists and they are just lying to themselves.>

Yes, but many people see God like the theist physicist Paul Davies, remote and unconcerned with humanity.

<<Why God doesn't just do that is a mystery.>

It's not a mystery because God has done that. Look at all the signs and wonders he did for Israel during the Exodus. The more signs he gave them, the less faith they had. Same with Pharaoh, who hardened his heart 10 times despite all the miracles. Same with Israel after the resurrection and the thousands of miracles that Jesus performed, including healing the lame, the blind and raising the dead. This just goes to show that it's true that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God.">

Yes, as Jesus himself said, “Unless you people see signs and wonders you will never believe.” (John 4:48)

<<<Big Pawn> puts forward credible evidence from theistic philosophy but for most people this is not enough. It's too intellectual.>

Yes, it's on the intellectual side, but only those hiding from God in their intellect would raise those kinds of issues anyhow. Most people think that God's existence is obvious without overthinking it. They don't need convincing.>

Yes, but what is the nature of their "god"?

<<Like <SugarDom>, many people can only see the suffering and chaos and it doesn't seem to make sense.>

Such people assume that life is about feeling good and having things easy, and when they aren't, they want to know why God has allowed the default position to be turned upside down. But the meaning of life is not found in pleasure, but in knowing God, and more people come to know God through suffering than through pleasure.>

Yes, but quite often they ask the same questions as <SugarDom>; If God exists why isn't he managing the planet? Why don't we hear from him anymore? Where is his prophet? Where is your evidence that God exists? What about all the evil, suffering and injustice in the world? Why hasn't God personally talked to me? Why hasn't God addressed the world now? Why don't I see or hear him? Why should I believe in him?

It's no use you just saying, "Here, examine these theistic philosophies," or "Here, read the Bible," or "Just accept suffering as good for you to believe in God".

I don't think *many* people see God that way.

<Yes, as Jesus himself said, “Unless you people see signs and wonders you will never believe.” (John 4:48)>

But he said that to the Jews, not to everyone, because the Jews require a sign.

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom" 1 Corinthians 1:22-24

<Yes, it's on the intellectual side, but only those hiding from God in their intellect would raise those kinds of issues anyhow. Most people think that God's existence is obvious without overthinking it. They don't need convincing.>

Yes, but what is the nature of their "god"?>

I'm not seeing how the nature of God follows?

<Yes, but quite often they ask the same questions as <SugarDom>; If God exists why isn't he managing the planet? Why don't we hear from him anymore?>

I don't think so. I think people who already rejected God, primarily because they love their sin, start to look for reasons to justify their decision, and they grope in the darkness, sifting through the lies they tell themselves, beginning with arbitrary questions like these.

I don't think *many* people see God that way.>

I think they do.

Many people accept there's a God but think he's so far away as to be irrelevant to their lives.

<<Yes, as Jesus himself said, “Unless you people see signs and wonders you will never believe.” (John 4:48)>

But he said that to the Jews, not to everyone, because the Jews require a sign.

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom" 1 Corinthians 1:22-24>

Jesus' words apply to all. Paul was writing specifically to the Corinthians, who are Greek.

<<<Yes, it's on the intellectual side, but only those hiding from God in their intellect would raise those kinds of issues anyhow. Most people think that God's existence is obvious without overthinking it. They don't need convincing.>

Yes, but what is the nature of their "god"?>

I'm not seeing how the nature of God follows?>

You say that most people think that God's existence is obvious without overthinking it, but not everybody worships the same God. For example, abortionists worship the pagan god Moloch, to whom they sacrifice their children, because that is the nature of their "god".

<<Yes, but quite often they ask the same questions as <SugarDom>; If God exists why isn't he managing the planet? Why don't we hear from him anymore?>

I don't think so. I think people who already rejected God, primarily because they love their sin, start to look for reasons to justify their decision, and they grope in the darkness, sifting through the lies they tell themselves, beginning with arbitrary questions like these. Basically, they reject God and then, when they try to justify that decision, they stumble upon things like the Problem of Evil, which is busted. They will find no justification and will be judged rightly by God.>

Yes, you said this the first time and I still think that not *many* people think like this. Deism isn't a fringe view.

<Jesus' words apply to all. Paul was writing specifically to the Corinthians, who are Greek.>

Jesus' words do not apply to all all the time so you have to look at the context. In this context, Jesus was speaking to the Jews. We know this because Jesus told Paul, who wrote in Corinthians, that Jews require a sign and Greeks require wisdom.

<You say that most people think that God's existence is obvious without overthinking it, but not everybody worships the same God. >

That doesn't matter. People look around, think about life and realize that God exists.

<For example, abortionists worship the pagan god Moloch, to whom they sacrifice their children, because that is the nature of their "god".>

Find me an abortionist who think they are worshiping God when they sacrifice their children. You have to be careful not to equivocate on the word God.

<This attitude by so many people reflects my earlier point that many people see God like the theist physicist Paul Davies, remote and unconcerned with humanity.>

Yes, but quite often they ask the same questions as <SugarDom>>

While I get the question, I'm not even sure it relates to this. This is simply human emotion making this big because it is here and now. Many more people die of other things (car crash) that we don't even think about because it's routine/invisible.

It's also a question of how you look at it.

1) They're projecting a 1% death rate
for this, so maybe the 99% survival rate is the "good."

(Imagine if 8 out of 10 died, and your age/health were irrelevant)

2) Some at least, will learn and improve their situation. The medical community, states having proper supplies, pulling away from China as your drug/medical supplier, individuals being better prepared in the next crisis, and so on.

3) Someone who losses a job may find a better one when this is over. People not going to work is probably saving lives in work related accidents, and car crashes driving to and from work.

As they say, "The Lord works in mysterious ways."