Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Evolution and a supreme being.

1356789

Comments

  • #102
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    RichieC wrote: »
    hahaha... "the god" I said... I'm leaving that typo be :D
    So....
    RichieC wrote: »
    I just hope the god the deniers in here are foreigners/yanks as I assume they are. I'm ashamed enough of this ****hole.
    That becomes, "I just hope god the deniers in here...." which is presumably supposed to be "I just hope god deniers..." Assuming this interpretation is correct, why would you assume what you assume?

    Because so many Irish go along with a "I don't need to follow any tenets of religion, I'll call myself a cultural Catholic." That it? For the moment I'll assume this to be the case. I'd find it more shameful that people will cling on to a label they can't shake despite having either no connection to what the label would suggest, or an extremely tenuous one.


  • #103
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RichieC wrote: »
    I just hope to god the (evolution) deniers in here are foreigners/yanks as I assume they are. I'm ashamed enough of this ****hole.
    Thats what I read :)


  • #104
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    seamus wrote: »
    Thats what I read :)
    Ah. Thanks for the translation. My previous post is rendered redundant.


  • #105
    Lone Stone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,405 ✭✭✭Lone Stone


    Im an ancient astronaut theory kinda guy myself :eek:


  • #106
    dirtyden
    Registered Users Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭dirtyden


    Robdude wrote: »
    "We're right! Except when we're wrong. But this is totally different from that other time when we were wrong."

    People in the 1400s had lots of observable evidence of a geocentric solar system. They were still wrong.

    Part of believing in the scientific method is accepting that, at any time, a better theory can come along and be more correct.

    We know Newtonian physics was wrong. But it still has a lot of solid evidence. Hell, it's even TAUGHT because it's pretty darn right in a lot of cases.

    Einstein came along with a better theory that was more right. But it still doesn't explain everything. Then we've got quantum mechanics that, again, still doesn't explain everything.

    I'm sure, eventually, we'll accept that all three are backwards and wrong as soon as someone comes up with something that is more correct and accurately describes MORE observable data.

    You are being quite unfair to Newton. His laws of motion whilst not painting a complete picture could hardly be described as wrong, incomplete might be a better description but genius nonetheless.


  • #107
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    dirtyden wrote: »
    You are being quite unfair to Newton. His laws of motion whilst not painting a complete picture could hardly be described as wrong, incomplete might be a better description but genius nonetheless.
    Oddly enough, Newton was a very, very religious man. And a total asshole with it, but undeniably a great mathematician.


  • #108
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,031 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Oddly enough, Newton was a very, very religious man. And a total asshole with it, but undeniably a great mathematician.
    Everyone has their blind spots, and Newton had a few. He wasn't very good with money, either - lost a fortune when the South Sea Bubble popped. But his Laws of Motion are still good enough for most purposes we have, they only fall down at relativistic speeds or if extreme accuracy is required.

    When you put together the results from genetics, palaeontology, geology, and so on, you end up with masses of support for the theory of evolution by natural selection, and none for any religious hypotheses. It wasn't done on purpose, there's no agenda to it - it's just the difference between a) evidence and b) no evidence. All that's left is the god of the gaps, and the gaps are shrinking.

    Death has this much to be said for it:
    You don’t have to get out of bed for it.
    Wherever you happen to be
    They bring it to you—free.

    — Kingsley Amis



  • #109
    Pedant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    Robdude wrote: »
    "We're right! Except when we're wrong. But this is totally different from that other time when we were wrong."

    People in the 1400s had lots of observable evidence of a geocentric solar system. They were still wrong.

    Part of believing in the scientific method is accepting that, at any time, a better theory can come along and be more correct.

    We know Newtonian physics was wrong. But it still has a lot of solid evidence. Hell, it's even TAUGHT because it's pretty darn right in a lot of cases.

    Einstein came along with a better theory that was more right. But it still doesn't explain everything. Then we've got quantum mechanics that, again, still doesn't explain everything.

    I'm sure, eventually, we'll accept that all three are backwards and wrong as soon as someone comes up with something that is more correct and accurately describes MORE observable data.

    Newton's law of physics were right, but only on larger planes - they break down on lower planes.

    In the future, it may be proven that even quantum mechanics breaks down after even lower planes and that a better view of universal mechanics is yet to be reached.

    It may even be possible that there are an infinite number of "mechanical planes" as each plane becomes lower and lower, the laws of physics become slightly different. The lower the mechanical plane is, the more accurate the picture of universal mechanics we have, but they will only ever be approximations.

    A similar interpretation can be taken of all scientific knowledge; it is all approximation, not pure fact. However, this implies (and this is vitally important) that pure fact (if even pure fact can exist) lies within approximation, most of this time this is all we need to prove something. It's like rounding off a number, like 1.776584824862 (depending on level of nontrivial accuracy needed) can be rounded off to, say, 1.7766.


  • #110
    dirtyden
    Registered Users Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭dirtyden


    Pedant wrote: »
    Newton's law of physics were right, but only on larger planes - they break down on lower planes.

    In the future, it may be proven that even quantum mechanics breaks down after even lower planes and that a better view of universal mechanics is yet to be reached.

    It may even be possible that there are an infinite number of "mechanical planes" as each plane becomes lower and lower, the laws of physics become slightly different. The lower the mechanical plane is, the more accurate the picture of universal mechanics we have, but they will only ever be approximations.

    A similar interpretation can be taken of all scientific knowledge; it is all approximation, not pure fact. However, this implies (and this is vitally important) that pure fact (if even pure fact can exist) lies within approximation, most of this time this is all we need to prove something. It's like rounding off a number, like 1.776584824862 (depending on level of nontrivial accuracy needed) can be rounded off to, say, 1.7766.

    I am surprised a pedant could compose that sentence.


  • #111
    LH Pathe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭LH Pathe


    Unless we're going to build our resistance underwater to the point we develop gils or be airdropped enough times with a placebo "false" parachute that we start to sprout wings.. the only 'evolution' left to take on is to reproduce younger.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Evolution is a part of biology (or perhaps the process of biology), which is based on chemistry, which is based on physics.

    Being religious and accepting evolution is little different from being religious and accepting physics. It's applying the same principles to a different question.

    If you reject evolution, in order to be logically consistent, you should also reject gravity, motion, electromagnetism etc etc..

    In itself, evolution doesn't disprove divinity in general - if you can want you can still believe the baseless notion that a creator set up the universe to function as it is.

    However, given the nature of the evidence for evolution - that we are the result of chance based on the randomly occurring environments that our various ancestors evolved in - it makes the notion of the particular gods that are currently popular less believable.

    Not impossible - I suppose he still could've generated the whole decent of man in a roundabout way on purpose - but it doesn't seem a very rational or efficient way for an omnipotent being to create life.


  • #113
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    mylastparadigm wrote: »
    I have a question.

    While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

    Why not post this over on the Christianity forum?

    I and others will be happy to explain how we believe in God's amazing creative power while not denying evolution.

    I clearly don't agree that it makes God "less believable" in the slightest. In fact, it possibly would make Him more believable from my perspective.
    areu4real? wrote: »
    I wouldn't say exactly the same way, no. I don't try to disprove religion and I'm an atheist. If someone called me and said they had rock solid evidence of the existence of a god I would be the first person at the door. I was simply pointing out that you are using science selectively.
    Just ignore the fact that there is a bible, imagine it got lost somewhere before anyone ever seen it. Now show me one tiny piece of evidence that there is a god... one piece that is not written word, word of mouth, carved in a stone, etc. There are museums that hold fossilised remains of early man right through to what we are now. I can go look at that. I can touch it if no-one is looking. I can follow a pattern of how we came to be. That, my friend, is evidence.

    That's not really as rational as one would expect.

    If the Bible is claimed to be God's word, then it is worthy of investigation. The logical approach to the Bible is not to discard it, but to investigate its claims and determine if they are true or false on the basis of that investigation.

    There are two outcomes that people come to in respect to it:
    One that it is God's word, and that it is worth heeding.
    Two that it isn't God's word and can be freely discarded.


  • #114
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    LH Pathe wrote: »
    Unless we're going to build our resistance underwater to the point we develop gils or be airdropped enough times with a placebo "false" parachute that we start to sprout wings.. the only 'evolution' left to take on is to reproduce younger.
    That's not how it works. Being dropped from a plane doesn't somehow make your body realise it needs wings and grow them or even allow your offspring to grow them, no matter how many times you're dropped

    It works the other way around. A genetic mutation causes an organism to be born with (the beginnings of) wings that the other members of its species don't have. That's when the dropping from a plane comes in. You drop 100 of them from a plane and only the one with the wings survives, so it gets to spread the new wing gene by f*cking all the widows of the ones whose lack of wings naturally selected them for death


  • #115
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    Why not post this over on the Christianity forum?

    I and others will be happy to explain how we believe in God's amazing creative power while not denying evolution.

    I clearly don't agree that it makes God "less believable" in the slightest. In fact, it possibly would make Him more believable from my perspective.
    You have foregone the concept of Adam and Eve, right? So, that whole thing of them, original sin, all that then is metaphor from your perspective?
    That's not really as rational as one would expect.

    If the Bible is claimed to be God's word, then it is worthy of investigation. The logical approach to the Bible is not to discard it, but to investigate its claims and determine if they are true or false on the basis of that investigation.

    There are two outcomes that people come to in respect to it:
    One that it is God's word, and that it is worth heeding.
    Two that it isn't God's word and can be freely discarded.
    But any debate on the merit of the bible is nothing more than shifted goal posts about what is literal and what is metaphor. It is literal until it is proved it could not be literal. Then it is a metaphor.


  • #116
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    You have foregone the concept of Adam and Eve, right? So, that whole thing of them, original sin, all that then is metaphor from your perspective?

    I don't need to discard Adam and Eve. Bear in mind, that the Biblical text doesn't imply or suggest that they were the only people in existence either (Genesis 4 when Cain fears getting killed would suggest otherwise). Looking to the structure of Genesis 1, it starts being clear that it is written in a poetic style.

    The perfect symmetry between days 1, 2, and 3 of Creation, and 4, 5, and 6 for a start.

    Day 1 - Let there be light. Day 4 - Sun and moon created (they are God's creation, they are not gods to be worshipped)
    Day 2 - The spirit breathed over the waters, Day 5 - Sea creatures created.
    Day 3 - The earth created - Day 6 - Man and other land creatures created.

    It's important to understand that the Hebrew word 'yom' which is rendered as 'day' in this passage is used in other parts of the Old Testament to describe periods of years. The point of Genesis 1 is to point us to God and His power in Creation. It isn't intended to be a science book. That would be to misunderstand Genesis.

    Days 1 to 3 of Creation specify the model, Days 4 - 6 define their substance and contents.

    The second Creation account in Genesis 2 is another clue. The first Creation account in Genesis 1.
    Genesis 1:1 wrote:
    In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
    Genesis 2:1 wrote:
    These are the generations
    of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
    in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

    Notice how the order has changed.

    The first account in Genesis 1 gives us the God's eye perspective of Creation. The second account in Genesis 2 gives us the perspective of Creation from an earthly point of view.

    "The generations" is quite typical of a genealogical style of writing in the Old Testament, usually used for giving details about people's offspring. In this sense, we're looking at the inhabitants or the generations of the earth from an earthly perspective.

    Original sin - is unbiblical from my point of view. Man is inclined towards sin because we've fallen into it. Adam and Eve are an example as to how that occurred in mankind. We are inclined towards sin. That's not the same as saying we had it from birth. Mankind has rebelled against God, that's why we're in a fallen state as humanity. Jesus came into the world, to bring us back to God by atoning for mankinds sin, so that the restoration work can begin for those who will live eternally through faith in His name.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    But any debate on the merit of the bible is nothing more than shifted goal posts about what is literal and what is metaphor. It is literal until it is proved it could not be literal. Then it is a metaphor.

    For the most part, that simply comes down to a good dose of understanding literary content. The Biblical text is a compendium of books, with differing styles even if they exist to communicate one truth, that is the good news of Jesus. There are poetic books, there is Hebrew law in the Bible, there are prophesy, there's historical books, there's Gospels, there's letters to new churches.

    It all comes down to reading the context correctly, and being willing to learn a bit about Hebrew, Greek and Roman culture in the process.

    It is misunderstanding what the Bible is if one doesn't understand the sections of which it is formed.


  • #117
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    philologos wrote: »
    If the Bible is claimed to be God's word, then it is worthy of investigation. The logical approach to the Bible is not to discard it, but to investigate its claims and determine if they are true or false on the basis of that investigation.
    To be fair, a lot of it - e.g. Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the cosmology - have already been proved to be fairy tales. On that basis, its not looking too good for the rest of the claims from a purely rational point of view.

    Your faith may vary, however.
    I don't need to discard Adam and Eve. Bear in mind, that the Biblical text doesn't imply or suggest that they were the only people in existence either (Genesis 4 when Cain fears getting killed would suggest otherwise). Looking to the structure of Genesis 1, it starts being clear that it is written in a poetic style.
    I can point you at millions of your fellow Christians who would happily label you a blasphemer and worse for this (what seems to me like a fairly sensible) approach to the Bible.


  • #118
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't need to discard Adam and Eve. Bear in mind, that the Biblical text doesn't imply or suggest that they were the only people in existence either (Genesis 4 when Cain fears getting killed would suggest otherwise). Looking to the structure of Genesis 1, it starts being clear that it is written in a poetic style.
    It is just a mess of contradiction. Before I look at how contradictory Genesis is, I'll start out with 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Not all of that is necessary, but might as well show the love the bible has.
    11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
    So, that said, let's take a look at genesis. Genesis 1:27...
    So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
    Oh, ok... But wait.. Genesis 2:5-7
    5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
    Now, you might argue that only Adam was brought to the Garden of Eden at this point. Which would be reading in to it more than seems to be presented... Just curious, if that is your take or if there were other humans, why could they not work the ground? Anyway, assuming you'll say there are other humans, there were obviously wimmenz but... Genesis 2:18
    18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
    There still isn't a woman there, obviously as instead of one of the already lollygagging women, a woman has to be made with his rib. Mental gymnastics are required to get past this.
    The perfect symmetry between days 1, 2, and 3 of Creation, and 4, 5, and 6 for a start.

    Day 1 - Let there be light. Day 4 - Sun and moon created.
    Day 2 - The spirit breathed over the waters, Day 5 - Sea creatures created.
    Day 3 - The earth created - Day 6 - Man and other land creatures created.
    Nice ad hoc justification there. Whatever outcome there was, you'd be saying "Well, this is just as you should expect." Nothing is to be gained from that.
    Mankind has rebelled against God, that's why we're in a fallen state as humanity. Jesus came into the world, to bring us back to God by atoning for mankinds sin, so that the restoration work can begin for those who will live eternally through faith in His name.
    So, not those who go on evidence.
    For the most part, that simply comes down to a good dose of understanding literary content.
    Why was it not apparent to any readers of the bible before that literary devices were employed? Why has it time and time again taken science demonstrating something to not be true for it to be categorized as a metaphor?

    Throughout history, look at the steps backwards that have had to happen for the bible. It hasn't been accepted in a "Oh that was a literary device". Is your understanding of the bible that a perfect being would create an imperfect book that would cause people who'll actually want to critically examine things to have to look at absurdity? Seriously? It is not a perfect book, it is much as one should expect. A book of its time.

    Edit: Just found this somewhere...
    Eve is called the "mother of all living (Gen. 3:20) and Adam--"the first man was of the earth" (1 Cor. 15:47; cf. 45).


  • #119
    areu4real?
    Registered Users Posts: 258 ✭✭areu4real?


    philologos wrote: »
    That's not really as rational as one would expect.

    If the Bible is claimed to be God's word, then it is worthy of investigation. The logical approach to the Bible is not to discard it, but to investigate its claims and determine if they are true or false on the basis of that investigation.

    There are two outcomes that people come to in respect to it:
    One that it is God's word, and that it is worth heeding.
    Two that it isn't God's word and can be freely discarded.

    How does this even address my post? Has anyone investigated the bible's "claims"(as you so nicely put it)? We've only had about 2000 years... and still no proof. I said ignore the bible for this exact reason; you see it as proof enough. I don't.
    To me, a god makes absolutely no sense. Never has, even when I was a child. It always fell in the same category as Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc. in my mind. Organised religion also makes no sense and in my opinion has been stunting mans progression for a long, long time.
    Imagine if we taught children from as soon as they were born to enjoy life to the max and do everything you want to do. You only get one chance, make the most of it.
    Religion had a stranglehold on children and taught that if you behave well here and worship one god that you'll have a great time after you die. What if you're wrong, what a waste of a once in a lifetime opportunity. That's what I think.


  • #120
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    areu4real? wrote: »
    Religion had a stranglehold on children and taught that if you behave well here and worship one god that you'll have a great time after you die. What if you're wrong, what a waste of a once in a lifetime opportunity. That's what I think.
    Well, worst case scenario is that you were a decent human being during your life - assuming you don't belong to one of those religions that are oppressive of others or whatever.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Well, worst case scenario is that you were a decent human being during your life - assuming you don't belong to one of those religions that are oppressive of others or whatever.
    That might be a point for those who feel good works are necessary to get in to door number 1 in the hereafter. Or, more accurately, those that believe this and act in accordance with it. Not to say the ones who don't hold this opinion would not operate this way, but to say religion is the incentive isn't really true. It isn't their works, in their mind. It is something outside of that. Perhaps something closer to humanism?


  • #122
    mylastparadigm
    Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭mylastparadigm


    Gbear wrote: »
    Evolution is a part of biology (or perhaps the process of biology), which is based on chemistry, which is based on physics.

    Being religious and accepting evolution is little different from being religious and accepting physics. It's applying the same principles to a different question.

    If you reject evolution, in order to be logically consistent, you should also reject gravity, motion, electromagnetism etc etc..

    In itself, evolution doesn't disprove divinity in general - if you can want you can still believe the baseless notion that a creator set up the universe to function as it is.

    However, given the nature of the evidence for evolution - that we are the result of chance based on the randomly occurring environments that our various ancestors evolved in - it makes the notion of the particular gods that are currently popular less believable.

    Not impossible - I suppose he still could've generated the whole decent of man in a roundabout way on purpose - but it doesn't seem a very rational or efficient way for an omnipotent being to create life.

    evolution - the greatest, most elaborate rube goldberg machine the world has ever seen? :D


  • #123
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    mylastparadigm wrote: »
    evolution - the greatest, most elaborate rube goldberg machine the world has ever seen? :D
    I'm sure you come to this assessment after spending lots of time looking in to what evolution is... No, wait, I'm not.

    Not evolution, but felt it worth posting nonetheless...
    541314_325965087476783_290687021004590_787577_1505286125_n.jpg


  • #124
    mylastparadigm
    Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭mylastparadigm


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I'm sure you come to this assessment after spending lots of time looking in to what evolution is... No, wait, I'm not.

    Not evolution, but felt it worth posting nonetheless...
    541314_325965087476783_290687021004590_787577_1505286125_n.jpg

    Im flattered.


  • #125
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Im a follower of evolution but I support anyones wish to believe anything they want. I dont see creationists in this country burning down labs or stopping research going ahead so live and let live.


  • #126
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    So yes, the discovery of evolution does weaken the case for a god, as it removes one of the gaps previously filled by God(s), which for many people, is a "god of the gaps".

    "Gaps".

    Lol.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    RichieC wrote: »
    hahaha... "the god" I said... I'm leaving that typo be :D
    First time that Richie has been mistaken for a devout catholic. :P Or perhaps even a creationist......


  • #128
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Pushtrak: The way you've laid out your post makes it quite difficult to read, and respond to.

    Let me try.

    I don't believe it is a mess of a contradiction. The Genesis creation account and its purpose, simply put isn't to be a science book. It's to tell us about God's creative power and our place in it, and to explain the problem that mankind is in, I.E - why there is no other way that we can know God other than through King Jesus.

    I'm reading Genesis 1 - 4 exactly as they are. I'm not saying definitely that there were other humans in existence, but looking at Genesis 4, one could come to that conclusion rather easily. Adam and Eve could be the exemplars of how sin came into the world. Paul like Jesus (further down) is using the example of Adam and Eve to teach Christians truth. Indeed, they are the first known human beings from a Christian perspective.

    As for Genesis 2, I've explained that in my post. Genesis 1 is a creation account from God's perspective to man, Genesis 2 is an account from an earthly perspective. Neither are meant to be a blow for blow scientific account of the universe, rather both accounts are to teach us something about Creation and ourselves.

    Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 clearly serve different purposes, and one only need a cursory look to see that. Most theological opinion is that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 form two creation accounts. That's why I posed the leading line in both. The first has a different order than the second. "The heavens and the earth", rather than "The earth and the heavens".

    Genesis 2:18 exists to describe the purpose of marriage. That's why Jesus refers to it later on. At my church here in London we're studying Genesis at the moment, and I've been astonished by how much I didn't know about what the Hebrew has been presenting. Jesus picks it up in Mark chapter 10 to describe His objections to frivolous divorce, saying "this is not as it was in the beginning". Pointing to Genesis, and quoting this passage. Man needing a helper has an interesting application for Christians seeking marriage. I.E - We're created in God's image, and we need to reflect His glory (t'selem or image can also be rendered reflection). Finding someone to marry shouldn't only be about the human enjoyment of marriage, but ones spouse should help and guide them in living for King Jesus in daily life.

    There's nothing ad-hoc about looking at the passage, in terms of its structure. In fact, I found in some passages, that if you don't look at the structure that you will miss the point of the passage. For example, in Mark's Gospel in chapter 8, you have a blind man being partially sighted, and then coming to full sight. In the following section you have the disciples partially seeing and understanding who Jesus is (Peter saying "you are the Christ") but then you see them misunderstand why He came (Peter saying that Jesus shouldn't go to the cross). He didn't understand that the Son of Man must suffer.

    Similarly in Genesis 1, we need to look at the structure, because its important in what it is saying to us. Structure tells us about the significance and meaning of a passage. It's valid to break Genesis 1 up into two halves, and there is a perfect symmetry there, which is entirely intentional to show that God's power brought all things into existence.

    To say nothing is to be gained from looking at the structure of the passage is silly. It's what people should be doing when they read in order to get a full understanding. Which is why I have to ask if you're really interested in what I say at all. If you've got your mind made up already, what's the point in discussing it?

    Why isn't it apparent that literary devices are used? - It's probably apparent to most Christians who give the Bible a lot of consideration. In some cases much has been lost through translation, so we need to be careful, and look back using a Hebrew or Greek concordance to see what passages are saying if we don't understand them in full.

    If the Bible is God's word and inspired by His Spirit, Christians also have the assurance that He will gradually guide them to understanding. I've been on a walk with King Jesus since 2007, and I'm still learning a lot about Him, and the truth of the Gospel. That is the simple truth that all mankind has sinned and fallen short of His glory, that man is worthy of eternal condemnation, but that God in His abundant mercy has sent His Son King Jesus into the world to rescue us from our sins.

    There's two options in hearing that truth:
    1) Hear and accept it the truth about our sin, and ask Jesus for forgiveness.
    2) Run from it.


  • #129
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    areu4real? wrote: »
    How does this even address my post? Has anyone investigated the bible's "claims"(as you so nicely put it)? We've only had about 2000 years... and still no proof. I said ignore the bible for this exact reason; you see it as proof enough. I don't.

    If you're trying to look into the Bible's claims while ignoring the Bible itself you won't get far. The rational approach is to look at what the Bible says, and see if it makes sense in the world at large. I find that the Bible makes more sense of the world than atheism does. I'm convinced of its truth, because I've seen many of the things it describes in its pages in action.
    areu4real? wrote: »
    To me, a god makes absolutely no sense. Never has, even when I was a child. It always fell in the same category as Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc. in my mind. Organised religion also makes no sense and in my opinion has been stunting mans progression for a long, long time.
    Imagine if we taught children from as soon as they were born to enjoy life to the max and do everything you want to do. You only get one chance, make the most of it.

    To me, atheism makes no sense. We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying. Christianity says God has spoken into our world, believe and trust in Him. The latter makes more sense for a variety of reasons.

    By the by, it's false to suggest that I'm not living the most now. I believe I am, and I am thankful each and every day for my existence. You seem to have some idea that Christians live a dour existence day in day out. This isn't really true. In fact I would say that I enjoy life more now than when I was an agnostic.
    areu4real? wrote: »
    Religion had a stranglehold on children and taught that if you behave well here and worship one god that you'll have a great time after you die. What if you're wrong, what a waste of a once in a lifetime opportunity. That's what I think.

    I'm not a fan of religious institutions, but that's not a reason to reject God or Jesus.

    See above about the enjoyment of life, I think you're wrong. As for behaving, you seem to be suggesting that there is something wrong in trying to lead an ethical existence.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I can point you at millions of your fellow Christians who would happily label you a blasphemer and worse for this (what seems to me like a fairly sensible) approach to the Bible.

    I've spoken to quite a few creationists in my time. Some friends of mine believe in a literal view of Genesis.

    Most have been reasonable enough to accept that even if we disagree on the mechanism, we agree on the end point. God brought all things to be from nothing, and we are called to live and serve Him, and that salvation comes only through believing and trusting in Jesus Christ.


  • #130
    Born to Die
    Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    Another thread with no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
    I really had hope for this one.

    Maybe the next one will be the one. :pac:

    Keep the faith.


  • #131
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Born to Die wrote: »
    Another thread with no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
    To be fair, only one side has any evidence. The other side has faith.
    Born to Die wrote: »
    Keep the faith.
    Unless you believe in evidence... :)


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Born to Die
    Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    To be fair, only one side has any evidence. The other side has faith.

    Unless you believe in evidence... :)

    I scoff at evidence. ;)

    *Must leave thread


  • #133
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    philologos wrote: »
    To me, atheism makes no sense. We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying.

    No, atheism says we don't know and that it's a problem for science to address.
    Christianity says God has spoken into our world, believe and trust in Him.
    I would read this to mean that Christianity says "stop trying because we already know".
    The latter makes more sense for a variety of reasons.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say it doesn't make any sense at all.


  • #134
    allibastor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,520 ✭✭✭allibastor


    i have evolved into a supreme being. do i win a prize?


  • #135
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    philologos wrote: »
    To me, atheism makes no sense. We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying. Christianity says God has spoken into our world, believe and trust in Him. The latter makes more sense for a variety of reasons.
    That is a very odd statement, odd because of the extraordinary lengths people over the years have gone to to try and understand the nature of the universe and everything in it.
    The majority of scientists are atheistic and are the very people who spend their lives trying to figure out where everything comes from. Religion with its all encompassing "God did it" is the real cop out.
    Also, why does there have to be a reason why we are here? (besides making people feel good about themselves).

    Why does the current limit of human knowledge have to imply there is a god? because our history shows us that time and time again and at every new step of understanding, what was thought to be the works of deities were actually natural phenomena explained by hitherto unknown processes. Why should our current limit be any different?


  • #136
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    philologos wrote: »
    To me, atheism makes no sense. We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying.
    Atheism "says" nothing of the sort. The only thing that's consistent in your position phil, is your constant misrepresentation of what atheism is.

    Atheism is the default position that we do not have an answer to the "where did we come from" question. Theism posits that the answer is "God". If anyone is to be accused of saying, "stop trying to figure it out", it's theism, which provides an answer which conveniently doesn't require any more effort.

    Atheism doesn't say that we shouldn't try to figure it out, it simply doesn't accept the easy answer that "God did it".

    The question of "why are we here" is a separate question entirely. Before you can ask "why are we here", you need to establish "does our existence require a reason"?
    C&#250 wrote: »
    The majority of scientists are atheistic
    That's probably a statement which you can't back up tbh. "Scientist" covers a lot of disciplines and could reasonably be used to include medical doctors, computer programmers, and so forth. I think the fairest way to say it is that the majority of scientists do not accept that "God did it" and continue researching the facts, even those that would claim to be theist in their outlook.


  • #137
    Pedant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    Philologos, is this another thread where you make a fool of yourself?


  • #138
    Damari Straight Eyebrow
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Damari Straight Eyebrow


    Pedant wrote: »
    Philologos, is this another thread where you make a fool of yourself?

    His catchphrase is "that doesn't make sense to me", so maybe...


  • #139
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    seamus wrote: »
    That's probably a statement which you can't back up tbh. "Scientist" covers a lot of disciplines and could reasonably be used to include medical doctors, computer programmers, and so forth. I think the fairest way to say it is that the majority of scientists do not accept that "God did it" and continue researching the facts, even those that would claim to be theist in their outlook.
    Not definitive proof, but here is evidence to support my statement.
    I can't link to the original Nature article because you need to sign in, but it's here from stephenjaygould.org.
    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html


  • #140
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    mickrock wrote: »
    Is the evolutionary process supposed to be completely random and directionless? Has the complexity and diversity of life happened purely by chance? Is this a correct interpretation of the theory?

    Only in the same way that the passage of a droplet of water down your window is completely random and directionless. While there is a "random" element to the path it will take... the result is constrained by other factors like gravity and hence no amount of randomness will make the droplet go upwards.

    Similarly Evolution has a "random" element indeed but the direction that can take has many constraints and what those constraints are, how they work and what they result in would be what the Theory of Natural Selection is about.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    The second law of thermodynamics would imply that there is an outside force that organised things at some point.

    Depends what you mean by "outside force" I guess, but it certainly does not indicate in any way that that "outside force" had to be an intelligence as so many seem to think. Nothing about life or evolution on this planet is in contradiction with entropy.
    Robdude wrote: »
    I am saying that there is a god and that god created man.

    And I am saying you owe me 10 million euro.

    There is a chasm of difference between saying something and evidencing something it seems. So alas I likely will not be getting my money soon. Nor are we likely to be getting evidence of your god soon either I warrant?
    philologos wrote: »
    I clearly don't agree that it makes God "less believable" in the slightest. In fact, it possibly would make Him more believable from my perspective.

    That is entirely dependent on what you mean by "god" and what you think the evidence for "god" is.

    Proving evolution does not disprove "god" generally because there are too many definitions of what people think "god" is going around.

    The fact is however if you think that there is a god solely because you inserted a god of the gaps into how life arose on Earth... the Theory of Evolution is a problem for you.

    You for example have never offered support for your "god" EVER except to claim that it "makes sense" to you that there is a god. As if what "makes sense" to you means squat.

    Clearly a position so weak, dilute, baseless, meaningless and devoid of anything even resembling commitment is not going to be assailed by Evolution. Or anything else for that matter.
    philologos wrote: »
    To me, atheism makes no sense. We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying.

    That is an outright, barefaced, transparent lie. Worse, you well know it too. After a display of dishonesty THAT crass you would do well to retreat from the thread crying like you usually do and find another one to enter and run from later.


  • #141
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    philologos wrote: »
    We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying.
    "Stop trying?"

    Do you have any idea what's going on in physics or cosmology these days?

    "Stop trying" is what happens when -- as you've done -- you read your holybook and say "oh, that sounds nice; it'll do for me" and you abandon any further effort.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    Neither are meant to be a blow for blow scientific account of the universe, rather both accounts are to teach us something about Creation and ourselves.
    Creation in a cognitive dissonance "God didn't do it but we'll say he did" and ourselves in that "We're filthy sinners who were created in gods image."
    There's nothing ad-hoc about looking at the passage, in terms of its structure. In fact, I found in some passages, that if you don't look at the structure that you will miss the point of the passage. For example, in Mark's Gospel in chapter 8, you have a blind man being partially sighted, and then coming to full sight. In the following section you have the disciples partially seeing and understanding who Jesus is (Peter saying "you are the Christ") but then you see them misunderstand why He came (Peter saying that Jesus shouldn't go to the cross). He didn't understand that the Son of Man must suffer.
    I'm not seeing the connection. Seems a misdirection.
    Similarly in Genesis 1, we need to look at the structure, because its important in what it is saying to us.
    With almost as many interpretations as people who read it. Perfect message?
    There's two options in hearing that truth:
    1) Hear and accept it the truth about our sin, and ask Jesus for forgiveness.
    2) Run from it.
    Is truth subjective? Objective?
    philologos wrote: »
    If you're trying to look into the Bible's claims while ignoring the Bible itself you won't get far. The rational approach is to look at what the Bible says, and see if it makes sense in the world at large.
    It doesn't.
    To me, atheism makes no sense. We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying.
    Atheism doesn't say anything. Some atheists will discuss religion, some will not so atheists saying _____ is a misnomer. I'm interested in what science has to say. If you are referring to the first cause, that anything that begins to exist has a cause, then there are two issues.

    1) The universe could have always existed.
    2) "Everything that begins to exist needs a cause. Except where it suits my argument" styled thinking.
    Christianity says God has spoken into our world, believe and trust in Him. The latter makes more sense for a variety of reasons.
    Like what? Pascal's Wager?


  • #143
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    philologos wrote: »
    We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying.

    No it doesn't. In fact it's the bible that says stop trying... and just accept a fairytale!


  • #144
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    philologos wrote: »
    To me, atheism makes no sense. We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying.

    I think you're severely confused about Atheism.

    Produce one, tiny, microscopic, tidbit of evidence that supports that claim.


  • #145
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    I think you're severely confused about Atheism.

    Produce one, tiny, microscopic, tidbit of evidence that supports that claim.

    He's knows perfectly well what it means, he's lying to himself.


  • #146
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    As I said before I lack a belief in god. Im a follower of science and evolution. Im an agnostic as I dont know if there is a god or not and in my opinion all good scientists should be agnostic to all things as yet unproven. I lack a positive belief in god and I think biology and the universe can be explained be science but I am not going to waste time by attacking people who have a belief in god.

    Science for me is brilliant as it has the potential to explain everything and give us mastery over our enviroment and ourselves. The only problem thing Ill say is that science is still subject to dogma now and again as is any subject with a human element. Science is not immune to fads and popularity contests. Some people within science believe that science is decided by popular opinion. Im not using this to descridit science as science is my passion Im just highlighting the need to be objective about science and the need to minimise human belief from science. Previously in the past scientists have been ridiculed for trying to promote the existence of the mountain Gorilla, the biochemical pathways for photosynthesis, soft inheritence, homo erectus and a range of other things only to be proved right.

    The starting point in science is we dont know and to me that is wonderful but there are too many scientists who start of thinking they "know". Another problem I have in science are the people who are twisting the meaning of skepticisim and simply promoting cynicism. A lot of current skeptics are guilty of dismissing things out of hand and in my mind thier not skeptics but cynics and offer nothing to science.


  • #147
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Another problem I have in science are the people who are twisting the meaning of skepticisim and simply promoting cynicism. A lot of current skeptics are guilty of dismissing things out of hand and in my mind thier not skeptics but cynics and offer nothing to science.
    I've been involved in the skeptics movement for many years in Ireland and I can't say I recall any skeptic who's "dismissing things out of hand" all the time.

    Could you give a few examples of people and things they've said so that we can understand what you mean?


  • #148
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The only problem thing Ill say is that science is still subject to dogma now and again as is any subject with a human element.
    Repeatable, testable experiments is far removed from dogma.
    Some people within science believe that science is decided by popular opinion.
    Perhaps in the sense that someone in one particular field will trust the scientific method is being used properly in fields outside their experience. Is this what you mean?
    The starting point in science is we dont know and to me that is wonderful but there are too many scientists who start of thinking they "know".
    Where is it you get this impression? I have seen nothing to give me that impression, and if this is so I'd certainly like to see evidence for it. Also, for the remark about promoting cynicism...


  • #149
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Science is not immune to fads and popularity contests. Some people within science believe that science is decided by popular opinion. Im not using this to descridit science as science is my passion Im just highlighting the need to be objective about science and the need to minimise human belief from science.

    None of this is the problem of science but the problem of humans. There will always be egos, popularity contests, cliques, those convinced of their own powers, skills, intelligence, conclusions and more.

    The point about science itself that differentiates it from other realms of discourse it that it is built to attempt to counteract all these things. It is a realm of discourse where one is not only awarded points for proving the work of others wrong, but for proving ones own work wrong.

    Even when a scientific proposition should be welcomed because it affirms biases however it is not. I can think of no greater example of this than the work of the late Lynn Margulis... who brought us the idea of symbiogenesis which shows that the reason for Mitochondrial DNA is that in our Evolutionary History there was a joining of Prokaryote cells.

    These conclusions are NOW a massive support of Evolutionary Theory and have shed massive amounts of light on our past. Does that mean because it was so great for Evolution that all the Evolution Scientists went "YAY" and just accepted it?

    Not a bit of it. Lynn underwent not years but decades of work, study, writing papers and books, Monography and speeches for over 30 years before her ideas trickled into the curriculum as a mildly controversial but generally accepted Theory.

    Having been lauded with praise for that work was everything she wrote then accepted? No, she is recognized as having some pretty barmy and evidenceless hypothesis too.

    Science is a human endeavor and as such will never be entirely free of egos, cliques and contests. It is however the best tool I know for minimizing those forms of impact from our human imperfections.

    It simply sounds to me that you have issue anecdotally with individual scientists and not science itself. Though until you provide direct examples as requested by another user above I can not really muse more on it.


  • #150
    areu4real?
    Registered Users Posts: 258 ✭✭areu4real?


    philologos wrote:
    If you're trying to look into the Bible's claims while ignoring the Bible itself you won't get far. The rational approach is to look at what the Bible says, and see if it makes sense in the world at large. I find that the Bible makes more sense of the world than atheism does. I'm convinced of its truth, because I've seen many of the things it describes in its pages in action.

    Again, you have dodged my point. If you ignore the bible and look for other evidence, there is none. On the other hand, if you look at the bible and investigate it's "claims" then you still have none. Zero. And I honestly don't mean to offend you here but I actually smiled to myself when I read you using the term "rational approach" above. You're convinced of its truth, I'm convinced it's the biggest selling sci-fi book of all time. Bigger than Harry Potter even...
    philologos wrote:
    To me, atheism makes no sense. We still have the huge problem, of where did we come from, and why we are here. Atheism says stop trying. Christianity says God has spoken into our world, believe and trust in Him. The latter makes more sense for a variety of reasons.

    I understand atheism doesn't make sense to you, I think that goes without saying at this point. I'm not even going to address the whole "Atheism says stop trying" thing as plenty of others already have said it better than me. Can I ask you, if the "huge problem" of where we came from was answered in full tomorrow by science, would you then reject god? Would that be enough proof or would you move on to the next level? ie. "That explanation would not be possible without god"
    philologos wrote:
    By the by, it's false to suggest that I'm not living the most now. I believe I am, and I am thankful each and every day for my existence. You seem to have some idea that Christians live a dour existence day in day out. This isn't really true. In fact I would say that I enjoy life more now than when I was an agnostic.

    I'm not suggesting you personally are not enjoying life, apologies if it came across like that. You seem like a happy individual and even though there may be some slightly aggressive undertones in this thread (myself included) you still keep it civil. For me, that is the only part of religion in general that works. But it also reinforces my belief that christianity is an old set of rules, written by man and adjusted with the times over a 3500 year period with the intention of keeping people in check.
    philologos wrote:
    I'm not a fan of religious institutions, but that's not a reason to reject God or Jesus.

    See above about the enjoyment of life, I think you're wrong. As for behaving, you seem to be suggesting that there is something wrong in trying to lead an ethical existence.

    That is not the only reason I reject god/JC. I consciously make an effort to be nice to people and don't need the fear of hell to make me do it. My parents simply raised me with a good moral compass. My folks were born into completely different religions (and their relationship was frowned upon because of this) so religion was never really brought into our home and for that I am thankful.
    My point above is this: If there is a god and all my life I haven't believed in him/followed him/worshiped him yet still led a decent life and was nice to people, I'm sure St Pete will swing that gate open for me. If there is no god and spent my life worshiping him, then my dying thoughts would be "what a waste of time". I think most religions in their current format encourage people to wait for this amazing afterlife and to strive for that afterlife. If there's none, then it's lights out and what a waste...


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Let's take a look at these. Ignoring the kind of ad-hominem posts I'll carry on. I want to do this as respectfully as possible. If people are just going to have a go at me as a person, that's not really something I'm interested in. What I can say is, go for it, have a laugh. In short it won't lose me any sleep :)
    robindch wrote: »
    "Stop trying?"

    Do you have any idea what's going on in physics or cosmology these days?

    "Stop trying" is what happens when -- as you've done -- you read your holybook and say "oh, that sounds nice; it'll do for me" and you abandon any further effort.

    Atheism != science. It's disingenuous to claim that atheism can take credit for science when there are scientists who are of pretty much every faith and none involved.

    Stop trying isn't particularly investigating what is written Biblically. In fact, it's the beginning of an investigation. Shoehorning ones investigation to ignore certain possibilities isn't much of an investigation. It's confirmation bias at work.

    It's nothing about it sounding nice as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, quite a bit of the Biblical text was a difficult truth to accept, not because its claims were outlandish, but insofar as it required a radical transformation of my life if I was to follow Jesus fully.

    A lot of atheist thinking has led towards ideas such as existentialism, which essentially means that it is impossible to know absolute truth. What Christians say is, that God has spoken into this world, and you can see for yourself.

    One thing I have in common with atheists is that I am concerned for what is absolutely true, rather than what is mere ideas. It doesn't matter if it is a nice idea, what does matter is what is true.

    The difference is I'm absolutely convinced for a number of reasons that it is more likely that Christianity is true rather than false.

    Indeed, in the absence of God or any form of absolute standard, there is no way that anyone can say what is completely true or completely false. Insofar as mental faculties are flawed, as much as we mightn't like to accept it. In theory anyone could be right, but there are ways that we can tell that one idea is more likely than the other. That is we look into what reasons we have for believing in X, Y, or Z.

    Contrary to what atheists claim, I think there are quite a few reasons for God. Some of which I've discussed on here numerous times, and other Christians have had a go at on this thread.

    The question is are we willing to give people a chance to explain before you call them fools, or have you made up your mind already?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Creation in a cognitive dissonance "God didn't do it but we'll say he did" and ourselves in that "We're filthy sinners who were created in gods image."

    I don't know where you got that out of what I said. Not at all. God very clearly did create the world from a Christian perspective. The question is what is Genesis telling us about it. Is it the exact mechanics of creation? - I'd lean strongly towards no, because it is written in a poetic style as I've shown you a few posts ago.

    God did absolutely everything in Creation. He intended it and it was. The very process of evolution was instigated by Him as far as I'm concerned.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I'm not seeing the connection. Seems a misdirection.
    With almost as many interpretations as people who read it. Perfect message?

    In this case, it's simply a case of looking at structure. I've shown you my reasoning, and I think if you disagree, you should present an alternative and give your reasoning why. It is a lazy argument to suggest that people disagree with me, I know that, and I have reasons to give for my position.

    Moreover, if you're not actually interested in putting forward your alternative and explaining bit by bit as to why you think that then I don't consider there to be a huge amount of value in discussing that point.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Is truth subjective? Objective?

    Objective. Irrespective of what you think, I think, or Billy down the road thinks, there's something real.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    It doesn't.

    Atheism doesn't say anything. Some atheists will discuss religion, some will not so atheists saying _____ is a misnomer. I'm interested in what science has to say. If you are referring to the first cause, that anything that begins to exist has a cause, then there are two issues.

    1) The universe could have always existed.
    2) "Everything that begins to exist needs a cause. Except where it suits my argument" styled thinking.

    1) That's fine, but I guess what I must ask is what makes you think that?
    2) What are you talking about? - I'm happy to discuss what you want, but it's nicer if you ask me what I think first rather than assuming.

    By the by, it's also an unfair assumption to assume that I don't care about science.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Like what? Pascal's Wager?

    Not at all. Pascal's Wager is woeful. As a philosophy student a few years ago I had quite a number of issues.
    smash wrote: »
    No it doesn't. In fact it's the bible that says stop trying... and just accept a fairytale!

    Any interest in discussing why you think it is a fairytale or are you just going to make an empty claim?
    Duggy747 wrote: »
    I think you're severely confused about Atheism.

    Produce one, tiny, microscopic, tidbit of evidence that supports that claim.

    There's a lot of reasons why I would accept the Gospel over atheism. In short, it comes down to the logical necessity of causation in creation, the source and sense of morality, the truth of sin in the world, the case for the Resurrection, the textual authenticity of the New Testament suggesting its not a forgery, the historicity of the Bible, Jesus' fulfilment of prophesy, the case for the existence and significance of Jesus of Nazareth, archaeology in Israel and Jordan, and geology, the embarrassing details that are in the New Testament that wouldn't be in it if it was a story to glorify the disciples. Simply put, the more and more we find in the world that backs up the Bible, the more and more I am confident to trust it. It's rather simple, and it's pretty much because I do have reason for my faith in Christ, that I really don't accept the continual groan of there being no evidence for it.

    Evidence is something that points towards a conclusion being true. Proof is only found in mathematics.

    What we do have for Christianity indicatory evidence - the more we have, the stronger one can trust in Christ. That's as far as I see it.
    areu4real? wrote: »
    Again, you have dodged my point. If you ignore the bible and look for other evidence, there is none. On the other hand, if you look at the bible and investigate it's "claims" then you still have none. Zero. And I honestly don't mean to offend you here but I actually smiled to myself when I read you using the term "rational approach" above. You're convinced of its truth, I'm convinced it's the biggest selling sci-fi book of all time. Bigger than Harry Potter even...

    You're not understanding my point.

    It's not an intellectually honest inquiry. If you ignore the Bible, there's no evidence for the Bible because one isn't reading the Bible any more. Do you not see how that doesn't make sense?

    What I'm saying is - if one reads the Bible and looks at quite a number of its claims, one can see that they have basis in reality. For example, the nature of sin.

    I'm not trying to fob off your point, I'm trying to make sense of it.
    areu4real? wrote: »
    I understand atheism doesn't make sense to you, I think that goes without saying at this point. I'm not even going to address the whole "Atheism says stop trying" thing as plenty of others already have said it better than me. Can I ask you, if the "huge problem" of where we came from was answered in full tomorrow by science, would you then reject god? Would that be enough proof or would you move on to the next level? ie. "That explanation would not be possible without god
    It won't be answered in full by science, but if there was more good reason to believe atheism to be true than Christianity, I'd have to review my position. In fact, all you'd have to do, is demonstrably show me that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:14) says as much. If you show it to be false, my faith is worthless.
    areu4real? wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting you personally are not enjoying life, apologies if it came across like that. You seem like a happy individual and even though there may be some slightly aggressive undertones in this thread (myself included) you still keep it civil. For me, that is the only part of religion in general that works. But it also reinforces my belief that christianity is an old set of rules, written by man and adjusted with the times over a 3500 year period with the intention of keeping people in check.

    I keep it civil, because believe it or not, I actually care about the Gospel, and I care about people. I want all people to come to know Jesus and be rescued by faith in Him.

    To present Christianity as a set of rules isn't exactly true. I don't need to follow rules to be saved. That is only by Jesus. It is because I am thankful for Jesus coming into the world to rescue me, that I live for Him. Not because I work my way to salvation. That couldn't be further to the truth.
    Ephesians 2:8-10 wrote:
    For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

    I don't believe that doing the right thing is a bad thing, and I don't see why faith in Jesus precludes me from enjoying my life and living as He wants me to at the same time.
    areu4real? wrote: »
    That is not the only reason I reject god/JC. I consciously make an effort to be nice to people and don't need the fear of hell to make me do it. My parents simply raised me with a good moral compass. My folks were born into completely different religions (and their relationship was frowned upon because of this) so religion was never really brought into our home and for that I am thankful.
    My point above is this: If there is a god and all my life I haven't believed in him/followed him/worshiped him yet still led a decent life and was nice to people, I'm sure St Pete will swing that gate open for me. If there is no god and spent my life worshiping him, then my dying thoughts would be "what a waste of time". I think most religions in their current format encourage people to wait for this amazing afterlife and to strive for that afterlife. If there's none, then it's lights out and what a waste...

    Firstly, there's no Biblical reason to believe that Peter will be at the gates. It's a nice image that people have made up.

    Secondly, we've all sinned and fallen short of God's glory. We all as a result deserve God's wrath and condemnation. God loved us, and as a result sent Jesus into the world to save us, it is by believing in His name.

    All one has to do in order to see how clear sin is, is walk through the 10 commandments and ask if you've broken them. Or simply look through your life and tell me you've never done wrong.

    The fact is we're all guilty and we need a Saviour. That's what I realised over 5 years ago when I accepted the Gospel.
    seamus wrote: »
    Atheism "says" nothing of the sort. The only thing that's consistent in your position phil, is your constant misrepresentation of what atheism is.

    Again, I welcome criticism of the Gospel. I post here because I seek to look at it from the other perspective. It's fair enough that if people criticise the Gospel here, that I can respond, and not only respond but criticise atheism openly.
    seamus wrote: »
    Atheism is the default position that we do not have an answer to the "where did we come from" question. Theism posits that the answer is "God". If anyone is to be accused of saying, "stop trying to figure it out", it's theism, which provides an answer which conveniently doesn't require any more effort.

    The question is. Do we not have an answer? Or do we have a number of perspectives that we should be willing to investigate rather than ignore?
    seamus wrote: »
    Atheism doesn't say that we shouldn't try to figure it out, it simply doesn't accept the easy answer that "God did it".

    Neither do Christians. Christian faith for many arises through honest and thorough investigation.
    seamus wrote: »
    The question of "why are we here" is a separate question entirely. Before you can ask "why are we here", you need to establish "does our existence require a reason"?

    I never said it did. I said it is a question that shouldn't be ignored.


Advertisement