The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

robdonn

hinault wrote: »

Let's examine what Chapter 1 Genesis actually says :



Verse 1 states that God created Heaven and Earth.
Is verse 1 statement a preamble to actions referred to in latter verses?

I ask this because every subsequent verse in Genesis states "And God said.."
to denote the creation of something.
Verse 1 and verse 2 doesn't contain any reference to say "And God said..."
Therefore is it reasonable to assume verses 1 and 2 a preamble?

Let's look at verse 2 says

Earth was void and without form. What does this mean? Earth was formed according to verse 1 but verse 2 says that Earth was void and without form.
Is this Earth that we recognise? No.
So what type of Earth is it that has no void and no form?

The Earth we recognise only takes shape starting at verse 10.

But going back to verse 2, the verse states

What does the face of the deep mean? What does move over the waters mean?
Note the use of the word face. Face is an exterior image of something or someone.
Note too the phrase moved over the waters.
If you read verse 6, verse 7, the word waters is referred to in the creation of the firmament. The firmament is taken to be the solar system, galaxies.

It's only in verse 10, that the word "waters" is expressed as part of Earth in the form of sea.
Again verse 10 is the first part of Genesis that describes Earth that we all recognise.

Verse 3 needs to be read in the context of verse 1 and 2.



If verses 1 and 2 are a preamble, verse 3 is the moment of physical creation
initiated by God.

If verse 1 and 2 are descriptions of physical creation by God at that point, the language used in both verses do not include the phrase "And God said..."
Neither verse contains the command of creation.

Separately we know that science tells us that without energy, matter cannot come in to existence.
God created everything including the laws which science identifies.

It is reasonable to make the guess that verse 3 is the commencement of the creation of the physical universe that we occupy.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have discovered hinault's true identity. May I introduce to you all, Kōhei Uchimura, arguably the world's greatest gymnast!

Only such a master of the sport could bend over backwards so much to try maintain a point.

1:2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

1:3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

If verse 1 and 2 are simply preamble, a brief synopsis before the actual story, then it still makes no sense. Verse 2 describes the earth after it was created, but how can there be "darkness" upon the face of it? If we are to assume that light came first in the true step-by-step account, then there should have been some light.

Ah, but there was no "face" for light to be cast, right? But then there is no "face" for there to be "darkness upon". Why describe something that hasn't been created yet? He might as well have said that the elephants were in darkness before he created the elephants.

And water... water apparently means different things? Definitely not just an ancient misunderstanding of our atmosphere? ( If rain water falls on us, there must be water up there, right? )

"And God said..." also does not appear to actually be a universally declared command:

1:6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.

1:7 And god made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

God said "Let there be a firmament", and then after he had declared this (presumably to himself) he then actually does the physical act. If his command was the only action required then verse 6 and 7 equate to "He made the firmament" and "He made the firmament". Sloppy writing for the perfect word of God. Unless, of course, the command is not the only sign that he did something, making the "verse 1 and 2 is just a preamble because he didn't say anything" argument null and void.

But what is void?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Awaits the usual "God did it" response that we are supposed to swalow as an explanationfor everything.

... "God did it" is logically superior to the materialist claim that "it did itself"!!!:)

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

... "God did it" is logically superior to the materialist claim that "it did itself"!!!:)

Only if you believe it, others don't therefore we find "god dId it" as ridiculous as you find the big bang.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

... "God did it" is logically superior to the materialist claim that "it did itself"!!!:)

It must be Opposite Day for you.

robdonn

J C wrote: »

... "God did it" is logically superior to the materialist claim that "it did itself"!!!:)

Look around you, the world is chugging along by itself without any divine intervention, what evidence do you have that shows it ever needed it?

DownOneTourist

robdonn wrote: »

Look around you, the world is chugging along by itself without any divine intervention, what evidence do you have that shows it ever needed it?

the guy who wrote that has richard dawkins quoted. i think he might be being sarcastic

hinault

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Only if you believe it, others don't therefore we find "god dId it" as ridiculous as you find the big bang.

You should have tuned in BBC4 earlier this week. Each of the cosmologists interviewed were busy putting forward theories all of which contradicted the other cosmological theories put forward by their colleagues, concerning Big Bang and how it derived!:D

Maybe in hindsight it's probably better that you didn't watch the programme, given your incapacity to grasp more straightforward facts.

In the meantime, it appears Science is slowly beginning to conform to to the truth that religion has told us all along.

Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, one of the most respected scientists today claimed that he found definitive proof of the existence of God. The information he shared created a great stir in the scientific community simply because of his status as one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory, which is highly regarded everywhere in the world.

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/42042/20160613/world-renowned-scientist-michio-kaku-proves-existence-god.htm

Cabaal

J C wrote: »

... "God did it" is logically superior to the materialist claim that "it did itself"!!!:)

If thats how you use logic then "Aliens did it" is also logically superior and equal to the claim of "God did it" after all we have just as much physical proof of god as we do aliens.

hinault

DownOneTourist wrote: »

the guy who wrote that has richard dawkins quoted. i think he might be being sarcastic

Well spotted sir!:)

robdonn

DownOneTourist wrote: »

the guy who wrote that has richard dawkins quoted. i think he might be being sarcastic

hinault wrote: »

Well spotted sir!:)

Those quotes, taken out of context, are used to support the Creationist argument. It's called quote mining.

PopePalpatine

hinault wrote: »

In the meantime, it appears Science is slowly beginning to conform to to the truth that religion has told us all along.

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/42042/20160613/world-renowned-scientist-michio-kaku-proves-existence-god.htm

In the article, Kaku is never quoted as specifying which god he's proved the existence of, but of course you had to leave out the bit which actually quoted him.

DownOneTourist

robdonn wrote: »

Those quotes, taken out of context, are used to support the Creationist argument. It's called quote mining.

Oh you're right actually. I couldn't understand why he chose those quotes but it makes sense now.

Safehands

robdonn wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen, I have discovered hinault's true identity. May I introduce to you all, Kōhei Uchimura, arguably the world's greatest gymnast!

No, I think you are being a little harsh. Hinault is at least trying to rationalise it's meaning and I applaud that.
It does mean though that even Hinault realises that we cannot take the creation story literally. It needs to be interpreted. Then it can be forensically examined word by word to try to establish what those words mean or what the correct context is.
Can't argue with that Robdonn!

robdonn

Safehands wrote: »

No, I think you are being a little harsh. Hinault is at least trying to rationalise it's meaning and I applaud that.
It does mean though that even Hinault realises that we cannot take the creation story literally. It needs to be interpreted. Then it can be forensically examined word by word to try to establish what those words mean or what the correct context is.
Can't argue with that Robdonn!

Hinault is not trying to rationalise it. Instead of even accepting the possibility that it doesn't say what he thinks it says, he is trying to interpret it to fit his existing beliefs. There is nothing rational about that.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

In the article, Kaku is never quoted as specifying which god he's proved the existence of, but of course you had to leave out the bit which actually quoted him.

As a scientist, all he can definitively conclude is that an Intelligence was required to create it.

The question for Atheists and like-minded people is do you accept this?

You keep saying that you would believe in an intelligent creation if you had evidence for it ... so here is evidence ....

Quote:-
"While working on this theory, Kaku discovered what he says is the evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence rather than by random forces. To put it simply, as stated by Catholic.org, he said that we live in a Matrix-style universe.
"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence," the scientist said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
So does this mean that he believes in the omnipotence of God? Yes, and no. Despite his theory of an intelligence being the maker of the universe, he may also be referring to Spinosa's God, which is a sort of deitification of the laws of the universe itself. This is the kind of God that Einstein also concluded years before."

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

If thats how you use logic then "Aliens did it" is also logically superior and equal to the claim of "God did it" after all we have just as much physical proof of god as we do aliens.

You are correct ... an Intelligence definitely did it ... you can quite legitimatey believe it was 'Aliens' ... I believe that the 'Alien' was God.

Prof Dawkins also believes that 'aliens' possibly 'did it' i.e. Created life on Earth:-

looksee

J C wrote: »

As a scientist, all he can definitively conclude is that an Intelligence was required to create it.

The question for Atheists and like-minded people is do you accept this?

You keep saying that you would believe in an intelligent creation if you had evidence for it ... so here is evidence ....

Quote:-
"While working on this theory, Kaku discovered what he says is the evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence rather than by random forces. To put it simply, as stated by Catholic.org, he said that we live in a Matrix-style universe.
"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence," the scientist said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
So does this mean that he believes in the omnipotence of God? Yes, and no. Despite his theory of an intelligence being the maker of the universe, he may also be referring to Spinosa's God, which is a sort of deitification of the laws of the universe itself. This is the kind of God that Einstein also concluded years before."

I really don't see how that adds up to evidence?

DownOneTourist

It isn't evidence. It's an untestable hypothesis. Kaku believes in a God because of the limitations of our universe. That's hardly proof of anything. Elon Musk thinks that we may live in a video game based on how quickly video games evolved (from those early 8 bit ones to the shiny 3d ones today). Musk's statement also isn't proof of anything. Believing in god is about belief. If there was definite proof there would not be many atheists. There will never be definitive proof that there isn't a god. I doubt there will be proof that there is one either.

robdonn

J C wrote: »

As a scientist, all he can definitively conclude is that an Intelligence was required to create it.

The question for Atheists and like-minded people is do you accept this?

You keep saying that you would believe in an intelligent creation if you had evidence for it ... so here is evidence ....

Quote:-
"While working on this theory, Kaku discovered what he says is the evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence rather than by random forces. To put it simply, as stated by Catholic.org, he said that we live in a Matrix-style universe.
"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence," the scientist said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
So does this mean that he believes in the omnipotence of God? Yes, and no. Despite his theory of an intelligence being the maker of the universe, he may also be referring to Spinosa's God, which is a sort of deitification of the laws of the universe itself. This is the kind of God that Einstein also concluded years before."

The problem with this is that there isn't actually any evidence being provided here, it's one man's interpretation which wouldn't be too bad except he hasn't released a paper documenting his studies.

All the quotes and comments are coming from a video from a conference, not any peer reviewed data.

J C

robdonn wrote: »

The problem with this is that there isn't actually any evidence being provided here, it's one man's interpretation which wouldn't be too bad except he hasn't released a paper documenting his studies.

All the quotes and comments are coming from a video from a conference, not any peer reviewed data.

Ah ... yes the peer reviewed data ... do you guys need peer reviewed data to see the nose on your face ... or to accept that tomorrow the sun will shine !!!:)

Here are eminent scientists (Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku) who are respectively saying that in their professional opinion and based on what they observe as scientists, it is possible that life and certain that the universe was intelligently created.

J C

DownOneTourist wrote: »

It isn't evidence. It's an untestable hypothesis. Kaku believes in a God because of the limitations of our universe. That's hardly proof of anything. Elon Musk thinks that we may live in a video game based on how quickly video games evolved (from those early 8 bit ones to the shiny 3d ones today). Musk's statement also isn't proof of anything. Believing in god is about belief. If there was definite proof there would not be many atheists. There will never be definitive proof that there isn't a god. I doubt there will be proof that there is one either.

There is definite proof that an Intelligence (of Divine proportions) Created the Universe and life.

... so I guess some Atheists are just as likely to be so biased by their worldview that they continue to believe (that God doesn't exist) despite the evidence that He does.

... something they routinely (and erroneously) accuse all Theists of doing (being so biased in their worldview that they believe in God without any evidence for His existence).:eek::)

DownOneTourist

J C wrote: »

some Atheists are just as likely to be so biased by their worldview that they continue to believe (that God doesn't exist) despite the evidence that He does.

Go on then, give me the evidence. By the way, Kaku saying something is true isn't evidence. If string theory was definitely true it would be called string law. I'm not going to pretend that I have a good understanding of string theory but I do know that it has not been proven to be true. Anyway what's this evidence?

robdonn

J C wrote: »

Ah ... yes the peer reviewed data ... do you guys need peer reviewed data to see the nose on your face ... or to accept that tomorrow the sun will shine !!!:)

Here are eminent scientists (Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku) who are respectively saying that in their professional opinion and based on what they observe as scientists, it is possible that life and certain that the universe was intelligently created.

If someone told me that the sun will not rise tomorrow, I would ask for the data, or more accurately I would ask for a few people trained in that field to examine and confirm the data. I'm sorry that your expectations for evidence are lower than mine, but "someone said it" is not good enough for me when a massive claim is being made and it doesn't matter who that someone is.

And Richard Dawkins has never said that he is certain that the universe was intelligently created, but if he turned around tomorrow and said it, do you know what I would say? "Show me the peer reviewed data."

robdonn

DownOneTourist wrote: »

If string theory was definitely true it would be called string law.

Just for clarification, a theory does not become a law.

A law is a description of an observed phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of how and/or why it occurs.

robdonn

J C wrote: »

There is definite proof that an Intelligence (of Divine proportions) Created the Universe and life.

So I shall ask again, as I have continuously asked through this thread, what is the "proof"?

DownOneTourist

robdonn wrote: »

Just for clarification, a theory does not become a law.

A law is a description of an observed phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of how and/or why it occurs.

Thank you. I thought I knew what they meant. Clearly not! Anyway I don't think J C will ever give a straight answer in relation to his evidence.

J C

DownOneTourist wrote: »

Thank you. I thought I knew what they meant. Clearly not! Anyway I don't think J C will ever give a straight answer in relation to his evidence.

I have given the evidence repeatedly, only for it to not be accepted ... with the bottom line apparently being, that because I'm a Creationist ... nothing I say will count.
... I have then shown you that different eminent conventional scientists believe that an Intelligence produced the Universe and possibly life ... and ye reject them as well.

What can anybody say to convince ye?

Try to convince ye against your will ... and ye will be of the same opinoion still.:eek:

DownOneTourist

J C wrote: »

... I have then shown you that different eminent conventional scientists believe that an Intelligence produced the Universe and possibly life ... and ye reject them as well.

But that isn't evidence!!

robdonn

J C wrote: »

DownOneTourist wrote: »

Thank you. I thought I knew what they meant. Clearly not! Anyway I don't think J C will ever give a straight answer in relation to his evidence.

I have given the evidence repeatedly, only for it to not be accepted ... with the bottom line apparently being, that because I'm a Creationist ... nothing I say will count.
... I have then shown you that different eminent conventional scientists believe that an Intelligence produced the Universe and possibly life ... and ye reject them as well.

What can anybody say to convince ye?

Try to convince ye against your will ... and ye will be of the same opinoion still.:eek:

I do not care that you are a Creationist, facts are facts and you have introduced none that are in any way convincing.

I want you to try to convince me, your lack of effort is failing you.

J C

Originally Posted by J C wrote:

... I have then shown you that different eminent conventional scientists believe that an Intelligence produced the Universe and possibly life ... and ye reject them as well.

DownOneTourist
But that isn't evidence!!

These eminent scientists are making their conclusions based on the scientific evidence available to them ... so just like I don't need any peer review on my doctor's opinion of my state of health ... I trust her opinion because her conclusions are based on the scientific evidence available to her ... neither do I go all pedantic and look for peer review of the considered scientific opinons expressed by eminent scientists like Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku.