The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

AtomicHorror · 14-12-2015 01:18AM

Safehands wrote: »

Brilliant analogy! But the Black Knight has nothing on JC.
I think he sees himself more like that guy in Terminator 2. He gets destroyed, blown to pieces but comes back without a scratch, as if the argument never happened.

Yeah, that works too, but can you imagine the t1000 posting 50 pac-face emotes right after he pulls himself back together?

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

antiskeptic · 15-12-2015 12:04PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I can't speak to the matter of translations, but J C knows his book and knows quite well how his particular English version came into being.

Knowing how it came into being doesn't alter it being a translation. And translation involves interpreting

He also knows that once you reject the intra-textual indications of what parts are allegorical or literal, and start into the business of gauging that from external cues, or worse, from empirical evidence, you're basically sunk. Your interpretation becomes entirely fluid, and all meaning is lost.

In his defence, JC has a string to his bow that an unbeliever won't have. Let's call it a spiritual sense. This adds an important dimension to his evaluating - one which isn't required to bow to the empirical (which itself tends towards being ascribed supernatural powers of commentary).

That said: deciding that the 4 corners of the earth is an idiom based on acceptance of the empirical evidence indicating a spherical earth is an interpretation.

The bible is supposed to be a guide book to life, morality and death.

I've heard it described as Gods love letter to us. Within that there is guidance on life, morality and death. But it's a lot more than that..not least, revealing the nature of God.

Imbued with the authority of the ultimate master. Perfect for a slave culture to maintain its cohesion and order.

Ironically, it's thrust is to disturb the slave culture (as in slavery to sin). It's not surprising the slave motif should make an appearance.

Without such a guide book, life, morality and death are frightening, complex and difficult to navigate. This is true even if you have good philosophies and lots of nice science. If your guide-book becomes, not an authority transcending such things, but instead subject to them... well then it's simply not useful anymore. It goes from simplifying complex things, to being an added complication.

A bit like all the philosophies that attempt to address these issues. Without authority they all end up pulling on bootstraps.

The issue is whether or not you decide something an authority. If so, and to your own satisfaction, then certainty follows: whether a comforting certainty or discomforting one.

If you must hold to a guide book, then it's better to draw your line in the sand. The sects- like J C's- that have taken this hard line will long outlive the Catholic church, despite their smaller numbers.

I don't think it's necessary to draw a line in the sand with respect to the Bible than it's necessary to draw a line in the sand with regard to scientific discovery. On one level you trust what it is and represents (God's word / Scientific Method) and on the other you remain tentative regarding conclusions.

I certainly think the YEC view has drawn a line in the sand and declared "to here and no further". Which is unfortunate, and I think, inappropriate.

Safehands · 15-12-2015 07:08PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

deciding that the 4 corners of the earth is an idiom based on acceptance of the empirical evidence indicating a spherical earth is an interpretation.

You mean, based on an acceptance of a fact, an irrefutable fact!

antiskeptic · 15-12-2015 10:08PM

Safehands wrote: »

You mean, based on an acceptance of a fact, an irrefutable fact!

Within the current space/time dimensional model we employ. It could be flat to one occupying another space time dimension.

It's the reason why science (as opposed to that which the dog in the street knows) remains ever tentative.

Safehands · 15-12-2015 10:24PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Within the current space/time dimensional model we employ. It could be flat to one occupying another space time dimension.

It's the reason why science (as opposed to that which the dog in the street knows) remains ever tentative.

You know, you speak of science as if it is some form of religious cult. You don't seem to realise, it isn't. It involves everything about us, the Earth, the animals, the universe, even a football entering a goal. So stop talking nonsense about science, as if it is some organisation you are doing battle with all the time. You quite obviously have a completely distorted view of what it involves, so you would be better off not talking about it at all than waffling on the way you do.

antiskeptic · 16-12-2015 12:06PM

Safehands wrote: »

You know, you speak of science as if it is some form of religious cult.

I speak of those who view science as you do as a quasi-religious cult. The evidence is in this very statement below

You don't seem to realise, it isn't. It involves everything about us

That is not what science says. That is what someone who believes science involves everything about us says. That belief isn't scientific, it's philosophical.

Since the philosophy behind your statement (empiricism) cannot prove (scientifically or otherwise) the claims it makes (an a priori claim about the totality of reality being naturalistic and subject to scientific investigation), it rises only to the level of belief.

What you seem not to grasp is that science developed out of an observation, by mankind, about the way an aspect of the reality he perceived about him seemed to operate. Because that aspect of reality seemed to operate predictably, because it seemed to operate logically, because it seemed to operate in an interconnected way, it was possible to develop methods of investigation. We call the methods developed, the scientific method. That method appears both to work well in dealing with the aspect of reality it concerns. And it also deals well with aspects of ourselves which we perceive to be prone to error.

If mankind, or a portion of mankind, find an aspect of the reality they perceive around them is approachable by other means then those means of investigation too will be developed.

That's the sequence: observation of the characteristic of the perceived reality > development of means of investigation/explanation of that perceived reality.

-

There is a significant flaw in the thinking of those like yourself:

Because the scientific method requires like-observation by all observers / repeatabilty of observation .. in order to ascribe reliability to the conclusions drawn, the assumption is that all methods of investigation for all aspects of perceived reality need do likewise. This is an assumption without grounds. One that assumes scientific method the only method.

Which is not to say that anything I've said demonstrates the existence of God or demonstrates the reliability of means used to examine God. It clearly doesn't. All that is being demonstrated here is the belief-basis behind empiricism and the misplaced notions they have about uber-alles reach of science.

Hopefully, by placing of science in it's actual position, a tool in the hand of observers of the material aspect of reality around us, I've removed it from the god-like pedestal it gets placed upon by believing (blind, as it happens) empiricists.

You quite obviously have a completely distorted view of what it involves, so you would be better off not talking about it at all than waffling on the way you do.

There isn't much in your post of substance, other than a repeat of the assumption you make about science.

You need to deal with the substance of the argument - not assume you are right and fling insult thereafter.

Safehands · 16-12-2015 02:37PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I speak of those who view science as you do as a quasi-religious cult.

That is quasi rubbish!

antiskeptic wrote: »

is not what science says. That is what someone who believes science involves everything about us says. That belief isn't scientific, it's philosophical.

Since the philosophy behind your statement (empiricism) cannot prove (scientifically or otherwise) the claims it makes (an a priori claim about the totality of reality being naturalistic and subject to scientific investigation), it rises only to the level of belief.

What you seem not to grasp is that science developed out of an observation, by mankind, about the way an aspect of the reality he perceived about him seemed to operate. Because that aspect of reality seemed to operate predictably, because it seemed to operate logically, because it seemed to operate in an interconnected way, it was possible to develop methods of investigation. We call the methods developed, the scientific method. That method appears both to work well in dealing with the aspect of reality it concerns. And it also deals well with aspects of ourselves which we perceive to be prone to error.

If mankind, or a portion of mankind, find an aspect of the reality they perceive around them is approachable by other means then those means of investigation too will be developed.

That's the sequence: observation of the characteristic of the perceived reality > development of means of investigation/explanation of that perceived reality.
There is a significant flaw in the thinking of those like yourself:

Because the scientific method requires like-observation by all observers / repeatabilty of observation .. in order to ascribe reliability to the conclusions drawn, the assumption is that all methods of investigation for all aspects of perceived reality need do likewise. This is an assumption without grounds. One that assumes scientific method the only method.
Which is not to say that anything I've said demonstrates the existence of God or demonstrates the reliability of means used to examine God. It clearly doesn't. All that is being demonstrated here is the belief-basis behind empiricism and the misplaced notions they have about uber-alles reach of science.
Hopefully, by placing of science in it's actual position, a tool in the hand of observers of the material aspect of reality around us, I've removed it from the god-like pedestal it gets placed upon by believing (blind, as it happens) empiricists.

You know, it would be very easy to get drawn in to analaysing this goggle-de-gook, until you step back and realise that this is all it is, gobbledegook

antiskeptic wrote: »

isn't much in your post of substance, other than a repeat of the assumption you make about science.

You need to deal with the substance of the argument - not assume you are right and fling insult thereafter.

Nah! your idea of substance does not compute. Sorry, there is a serious logic deficite in your ramblings!

antiskeptic · 16-12-2015 02:55PM

Safehands wrote: »

That is quasi rubbish!

You know, it would be very easy to get drawn in to analaysing this goggle-de-gook, until you step back and realise that this is all it is, gobbledegook

Nah! your idea of substance does not compute. Sorry, there is a serious logic deficite in your ramblings!

We're done so. I'll take it you won't respond to comments on this matter which aren't (and won't be, henceforth) directed at you.

Safehands · 16-12-2015 03:15PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're done so. I'll take it you won't respond to comments on this matter which aren't (and won't be, henceforth) directed at you.

It depends. It depends on your postings, which can be interesting, sometimes.
I don't believe in creation, I do have faith in the scientific community, you misunderstand them completely. So your views and mine could not be more different.

But the world is a better place with diversity.

antiskeptic · 16-12-2015 06:26PM

Safehands wrote: »

It depends. It depends on your postings, which can be interesting, sometimes.

Thanks. Yours too. I meant our conversation was over in the sense of this specific issue: you arguing that science covers every aspect of reality and me arguing that your view is a philosophical (thus faith) derived claim about the reach-capability of science.

I don't believe in creation

And I do - albeit not according the the YEC view

I do have faith in the scientific community

As do I, I'm an engineer and am thus, an applied scientist of sorts and have a lot of faith in the scientific endeavour. I just don't hold the same philosophical position that you do as to it's total-reach-capability.

I don't for that matter, have faith that science is anywhere near as reliable in it's determinations about everyday (i.e. not existence of God) issues. I would, for example, distrust sciences pronouncements on the sure-fire safety of vaccinations, for example - what with science in that area neck-deep in their dependence on the pharma industry for it's finances. I took a similar position on the whole dietary cholesterol hypothesis (with associated statin-money) well before the current doubts about said hypothesis became as commoner garden as they've become.

People are people first (with all their propensity for error, corruption, blind spots, biases) and scientists second. I've yet to see a proof that scientific method can prevent the products of those human propensities. Sure, scientific method has a self-correcting element built in. But that's not a proof of anything, especially not wholesale wrong.

you misunderstand them completely

I think you'd have to point out what my misunderstanding is more specifically rather than simply handwave the arguments away. That would be more ... er .. scientific and methodological. I thought you admired that mode of operation

But the world is a better place with diversity.

I think the world would be a better place if everyone was a Christian in the mould God has in mind (which allows for wide diversity - just not total diversity). But I am perfectly okay with the fact that it's not nor ever will be. It wasn't going to be any different than what it is.

Harika · 18-12-2015 10:53AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

And I do - albeit not according the the YEC view

...
As do I, I'm an engineer and am thus, an applied scientist of sorts and have a lot of faith in the scientific endeavour. I just don't hold the same philosophical position that you do as to it's total-reach-capability.

Oh that interests me now, as engineer who believes in creation what strengths and weaknesses can you identify in the creation of universe, earth and humans? What improvements can be done or are those three things perfect as they are? And finally if you would give it a mark to the creator from A+ to F, for each of the three subjects, what would it be and why?

antiskeptic · 18-12-2015 02:23PM

Harika wrote: »

Oh that interests me now, as engineer who believes in creation what strengths and weaknesses can you identify in the creation of universe, earth and humans? What improvements can be done or are those three things perfect as they are? And finally if you would give it a mark to the creator from A+ to F, for each of the three subjects, what would it be and why?

My experience of creation is that of it being in fallen state: sickness, disease, death and sin are part and parcel of it. So in one sense it gets a poor mark - but that because of it's falleness. It wasn't originally created to be so (the original would have been perfect).

In another sense however, the imperfectness serves a perfect purpose: it provides the stage on which and the mechanism by which each and every individual is given the opportunity to answer the question God (effectively, and through that mechanism) asks of them:

"Does your heart of hearts want what I stand for or does it want what stands against me"

The eternal destinations provided (Heaven and Hell) are assigned to a person according to their hearts desire.

Harika · 18-12-2015 07:52PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

My experience of creation is that of it being in fallen state: sickness, disease, death and sin are part and parcel of it. So in one sense it gets a poor mark - but that because of it's falleness. It wasn't originally created to be so (the original would have been perfect).

In another sense however, the imperfectness serves a perfect purpose: it provides the stage on which and the mechanism by which each and every individual is given the opportunity to answer the question God (effectively, and through that mechanism) asks of them:

"Does your heart of hearts want what I stand for or does it want what stands against me"

The eternal destinations provided (Heaven and Hell) are assigned to a person according to their hearts desire.

Okay, good. That we are on the same page: We were created in god's image afaik, so can we assume that this is still the case? So he is also imperfect?

P.S: I couldn't find the quote anywhere.

looksee · 19-12-2015 11:22AM

Let me see if I have this right. God created the world and he put two people and lots of animals, including a bad-minded talking snake. The talking snake persuaded the two people to do something they had been specifically told not to do - eat an apple. They were then fallen so went on to have two sons who somehow populated the world.

My questions are:

Why do snakes no longer talk?
When did they lose their vocal chords?
Why did God create a snake that could talk in the first place?
Why create a bad minded animal in all that perfection?
Why do people still eat apples, given their bad rep?
How did the two sons manage to procreate?

These might seem like very simplistic, literal questions, but there must be answers? I mean its not like its an allegory, is it? Maybe if you could explain some of the really basic stuff I might begin to be convinced.

indioblack · 19-12-2015 02:41PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

My experience of creation is that of it being in fallen state: sickness, disease, death and sin are part and parcel of it. So in one sense it gets a poor mark - but that because of it's falleness. It wasn't originally created to be so (the original would have been perfect).

In another sense however, the imperfectness serves a perfect purpose: it provides the stage on which and the mechanism by which each and every individual is given the opportunity to answer the question God (effectively, and through that mechanism) asks of them:

"Does your heart of hearts want what I stand for or does it want what stands against me"

The eternal destinations provided (Heaven and Hell) are assigned to a person according to their hearts desire.

Your experience is not of creation, but existence - which is why creation is being debated.
In the bible story the Fall occurs because of the original sin. The omnipotent god in this story responds to this sin by basically creating the existence we have now.
As I've argued elsewhere, if you are a believer in this omnipotent god, then god's response to Adam's sin is just - and god's continued response from that time to this is also just.
Because of that original sin existence is changed for the whole of human history - we are born into a fallen world with the ability to fall ourselves.
Yet we had no hand in the original change of existence which has brought us to where we are today.
With an omnipotent god, this original fall was reversible - why exact such a retribution on the entirety of humankind for the whole of human history?
In the bible story, we operate within a framework of existence that is the result of that original sin.
But that framework of existence resides within the boundaries of god's creation.
It's insufficient to have god say, "OK, my original creation has gone wrong - but it allows humanity an opportunity to redeem itself".
With an omnipotent god, this makes no sense.

silverharp · 19-12-2015 04:45PM

I dont think its logical for anyone even christians to assume there is an "omnipotent god" , the most you could say was that it was assembled by an "engineer" type entity who itself was subject to external constraints. the question becomes "who" is "god's" boss?

Safehands · 20-12-2015 01:44AM

silverharp wrote: »

I dont think its logical for anyone even christians to assume there is an "omnipotent god" , the most you could say was that it was assembled by an "engineer" type entity who itself was subject to external constraints. the question becomes "who" is "god's" boss?

it's all nonsense. Justifying a 2000 year old text which has been superceded by our knowledge of science means that those believers are struggling to justify the clearly inaccurate stories. It's all just stories, get used to it and come into the 21st century.

tommy2bad · 20-12-2015 08:05PM

Safehands wrote: »

it's all nonsense. Justifying a 2000 year old text which has been superceded by our knowledge of science means that those believers are struggling to justify the clearly inaccurate stories. It's all just stories, get used to it and come into the 21st century.

Why? Have you better stories?
Its all stories, makes no difference which set you use, in the end its how you use them.

antiskeptic · 20-12-2015 10:10PM

Harika wrote: »

Okay, good. That we are on the same page: We were created in god's image afaik, so can we assume that this is still the case? So he is also imperfect?

There was this not insignificant event called the Fall. Imperfection: in man and all creation, came in.

Prior to that, man was in God's image and likeness (without them being God)

P.S: I couldn't find the quote anywhere.

Google 'image and likeness'?

Overheal · 21-12-2015 03:36AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why? Have you better stories?
Its all stories, makes no difference which set you use, in the end its how you use them.

The texts taken in their entirety would cause an AI to conflict with itself..

Like the Koran or any other text, taking the best from it and rejecting the worst is not a bad method if your plan is to read it as an instruction manual for your life.

Harika · 21-12-2015 09:16AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

There was this not insignificant event called the Fall. Imperfection: in man and all creation, came in.

Prior to that, man was in God's image and likeness (without them being God)

Yes "sickness, disease, death and sin" but what about the general design? Has God also two legs, arms, a nose, mouth, a hearth in the center of the body and so on? Did this also change at the fall? And who changed it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Google 'image and likeness'?

I mean "Does your heart of hearts want what I stand for or does it want what stands against me"

antiskeptic · 21-12-2015 11:59AM

Harika wrote: »

Yes "sickness, disease, death and sin" but what about the general design? Has God also two legs, arms, a nose, mouth, a hearth in the center of the body and so on? Did this also change at the fall? And who changed it?

Image and likeness aren't necessarily taken to mean physical image, rather, a resemblance to God (or aspects of God). For example: relational, creative, capable of emotion, self-willed, etc

In becoming man, God took on the fallen physicality, his being mortal.

Presumably pre-Fall, his walking in the garden of Eden in the cool of the day saw him with pre-Fall physicality

I mean "Does your heart of hearts want what I stand for or does it want what stands against me"

That's what things distill down to: this worlds a stage involving our being exposed to God's way and anti-God's way and having a choice as to which we want ultimately.

The indications are that all will be saved, save those who will it not.

antiskeptic · 21-12-2015 12:48PM

indioblack wrote: »

Your experience is not of creation, but existence - which is why creation is being debated.

I've concluded our existence created (and experience it in the way I do) but don't mind discussing it.

In the bible story the Fall occurs because of the original sin. The omnipotent god in this story responds to this sin by basically creating the existence we have now.

More technically (and perhaps more accurately):

- God gives man dominion over the created realm.

- God gives man a choice

- man chooses to introduce corruption into himself and, as a consequence of his dominionship, into that which he has dominion over.

- God facilitates the corruption as an enabler of mans choice.

God's holiness is the chief characteristic in play here. Yes, his omnipotence permits him to enable to the extent he does but it's his holiness which the the motivator behind his enabling. (A bit like will is the main motivator behind the direction your car goes in, rather than the power steering which responds to the will)

As I've argued elsewhere, if you are a believer in this omnipotent god, then god's response to Adam's sin is just - and god's continued response from that time to this is also just.

I don't think you have to be a believer to see the justness of God's actions. You can simply see it as a thought experiment and leave belief at the door

Because of that original sin existence is changed for the whole of human history - we are born into a fallen world with the ability to fall ourselves.

Slight correction: we are born fallen. We sin because we are, in our very constitution, sinners (much like carnivores are born carnivores: they eat meat because that is their constitution)

Yet we had no hand in the original change of existence which has brought us to where we are today.

I'd agree. It was dominionship which resulted in the world from Adam onward suffering the consequences of the Fall.

But it's not relevant that the initial Fall isn't the direct fault of you or I (whatever about our culpability in propagating it to the present day). Legally and naturalistically, we justly receive the consequences of that which befalls us. The German people didn't to a man, support the Nazi's but suffered nationally for the actions of those who had dominion over it.

The world as it is happens to function as a perfect stage on which a very important shuffling out occurs. We all have wills, and those wills are (as a result of the Fall) exposed to a draw towards the way and character of God (selfless, joyful, relational, good) and a draw towards the way of that which is opposed to and opposite in character to God (selfish, greedy, proud, lustful, etc)

We get to choose which way we ultimately want. So, this world can be seen as a precursor to the main, eternal event.

It was necessary that we be given a genuine choice - since love can't truly be love if one party to it are not given an informed choice as to whether they want to have the love relationship or not.

Had Adam chosen not to sin then God would have had to find another way to extend genuine choice to all. As it happens, that problem was resolved by Adam.

With an omnipotent god, this original fall was reversible - why exact such a retribution on the entirety of humankind for the whole of human history?

See above. I'm not sure the Fall was as reversible as you say: God had given Adam dominion over creation and that restrains things legally. You can't simply reverse a legal contract willy nilly.

In the bible story, we operate within a framework of existence that is the result of that original sin. But that framework of existence resides within the boundaries of god's creation.

I'm not sure what you mean here. All of creation fell with Adam.

It's insufficient to have god say, "OK, my original creation has gone wrong - but it allows humanity an opportunity to redeem itself".
With an omnipotent god, this makes no sense.

First thing: there is no possibility of man redeeming himself. God has stepped in as man's redeemer precisely because man cannot do it. And the mechanism involved doesn't require man to do anything by way of positive contribution as such. The relationship between God and us (in it's proper sense) is pictured as that of Father / Child. Perpetually so. There wasn't to be any growing up (in the sense of own independence or finally usurping the father as he declined in time). It is the father who comes to the helpless childs rescue. Just as in life.

Second thing: omnipotence doesn't mean God can do simply anything at all. He cannot lie, for instance. Or break a contract.

silverharp · 21-12-2015 12:59PM

What does omnipotent mean? The observable universe is a good case against a deity that can manipulate matter in any meaningful way.

antiskeptic · 21-12-2015 01:38PM

silverharp wrote: »

What does omnipotent mean? The observable universe is a good case against a deity that can manipulate matter in any meaningful way.

Omnipotent has various definitions, none of which might the applicable one. I take it to mean able to do anything that is doable

God cannot create square circles or act contra his nature (lie, for instance)

I'm not sure what the good case you're supposing is. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Safehands · 21-12-2015 03:07PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

There was this not insignificant event called the Fall. Imperfection: in man and all creation, came in.

You added a "T" too many. It should read: There was no insignificant event called the Fall.

Harika · 21-12-2015 04:14PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Image and likeness aren't necessarily taken to mean physical image, rather, a resemblance to God (or aspects of God). For example: relational, creative, capable of emotion, self-willed, etc

In becoming man, God took on the fallen physicality, his being mortal.

Presumably pre-Fall, his walking in the garden of Eden in the cool of the day saw him with pre-Fall physicality

So basically we are juggling around and even as it is said we look like god, we don't know how it looked? As we were created after him but then stumbled and now are completely different to being created. So what was the point in the first place to make us in her image? Wouldn't it be more honest to say "God created us imperfect, given with the opportunity to praise and serve her"

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's what things distill down to: this worlds a stage involving our being exposed to God's way and anti-God's way and having a choice as to which we want ultimately.

The indications are that all will be saved, save those who will it not.

Yeah but was it a quote or your comment? As the " indicated it was a quote.

antiskeptic · 21-12-2015 04:50PM

Harika wrote: »

So basically we are juggling around and even as it is said we look like god, we don't know how it looked?

It isn't said we look like God. You say that. I say image and likeness don't refer to physical attributes. Sure God can incarnate as flesh but that's not to say God is to be considered as a physical entity.

As we were created after him but then stumbled and now are completely different to being created.

He wasn't created for us to be created after him

We are created but are created in the realm of the fall and so are automatically corrupted.

So what was the point in the first place to make us in her image?

Made in the image and likeness allows the possibility of intimate relationship. You can't have intimate relationships with that that is other than you in image and likeness. We might have relations with dogs and cats but the deepest relations are with those who most share our image and likeness. And include other humans in that: we have deeper relations with those who we fully get and who most fully get us than we do who are less in our image and likeness.

Wouldn't it be more honest to say "God created us imperfect, given with the opportunity to praise and serve her"

What basis would you suppose this view more honest other than simply asking the question of whether it would be more honest?

Yeah but was it a quote or your comment? As the " indicated it was a quote.

Comment.

silverharp · 22-12-2015 09:03AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Omnipotent has various definitions, none of which might the applicable one. I take it to mean able to do anything that is doable

God cannot create square circles or act contra his nature (lie, for instance)

I'm not sure what the good case you're supposing is. Perhaps you could elaborate?

in the sense that the universe wasnt zapped into existence in its current state. all the rules of physics had to be followed. Even looking at how the earth came into being , its supposed to have been as the result of a nearby supernova that created enough pressure to get enough matter into the same space to start the process of planet forming. So this particular planet needed and had to wait for another sun to go through its life cycle. or even if you look at the earth or the universe, most of it is a kill zone for us

or to put it another way if you were an omnipotent god and wanted a slice of bread, would you zap it into existence or go get some seeds and start planting some wheat ?

antiskeptic · 22-12-2015 10:11AM

silverharp wrote: »

in the sense that the universe wasnt zapped into existence in its current state. all the rules of physics had to be followed.

The conditions which brought about the universe such as to produce it's current state stand outside the current understanding of physics. What had and hadn't to be followed is an unknown.

Bear in mind that the rules of physics themselves aren't absolute laws but are merely a function of the nature of the universe as we observe it to be. If the nature of the universe had been other, such as to behave predictably in other fashion then the rules of physics would be other, to reflect those observations.

So I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion you arrived at earlier (evidence against a deity)

Even looking at how the earth came into being , its supposed to have been as the result of a nearby supernova that created enough pressure to get enough matter into the same space to start the process of planet forming. So this particular planet needed and had to wait for another sun to go through its life cycle. or even if you look at the earth or the universe, most of it is a kill zone for us

or to put it another way if you were an omnipotent god and wanted a slice of bread, would you zap it into existence or go get some seeds and start planting some wheat ?

Convenience food vs. prepare your own meal? I know which one I'd pick.

I recall many years ago (and long before I was a believer) standing outside having a smoke late at night and looking up into a star-filled, light un-polluted winters sky. I was disturbed by what I saw there. I'd a decent enough understanding of the scale of the universe to be rendered awestruck by what might otherwise be seen as mere pinpricks of light. The scale, the age, the complexity, the chances involved, the balance, the beauty.. that's what my understanding of physics brought about.

The creation is cited as one of the ways in which God is demonstrated (obliquely, indirectly, for it must be that way) to man. Although there is no issue in trying to understand its workings, the ultimate destination (whether looking at the macro or the micro) is meant to be awe and humility.

Awe and humility are opposite attitudes to the one we labour under (and have laboured under since the Fall): pride.

God's task is to cause proud men to kneel (properly, respectfully and for their own good, not subserviently). For if that, then they can take up their proper and rightful place in his realm. If not that then they must be discarded, since that which is inappropriately proud (that is to say, that which would insist on a position that doesn't befit them) is but a rebel to be banished.

Awestruckness is better brought about by the scale, complexity, infinitesmal chance, balance and beauty of the universe as it appears to us to be and have come into being. A ready meal wouldn't serve that purpose quite as well.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments