What would it take?

[Kennyc]

Kenny, if you aren't going to read the posts, don't bother posting. Jan and I have been going back and forth for weeks now because I don't think that is even what the Bible says. So, no - I don't believe the universe was created in six days, I don't believe the Bible says that it was, and people like you who choose to accept only such meanings are more interested in creating an image of Christianity that you can ridicule than actually engaging in anything that remotely approaches intelligent conversation.

I'm proud for you.

I will post relevant and responsive posts all I want. You asked, I responded. If you don't believe what the good book says then it's either fiction or myth but certainly not truth.

 

[SolusCado]

I will post relevant and responsive posts all I want. You asked, I responded. If you don't believe what the good book says then it's either fiction or myth but certainly not truth.

The problem with that statement is that your posts are NOT relevant - something you would know if you bothered reading other posts. And your last sentence doesn't even make sense:

"If you don't believe what the good book says" (a claim neither of us have made, but whatever...) "then it's either fiction or myth but certainly not truth." So it is only fiction or myth if we don't believe what it says? Since when does belief in something dictate its veracity? Or are you simply saying that anyone who doesn't believe what it says must then believe it is either fiction or myth?

So, are you simply saying that because you don't believe what it says, then you believe it is either fiction or myth? Fine, you are of course free to believe whatever you like, but you tossing out mindless opinions is relatively useless - tossing them out as though they are fact because they are your opinion is dishonest. So, you are at best useless, and at worst dishonest.

Once more, I'm proud for you.

 

[Kennyc]

The problem with that statement is that your posts are NOT relevant - something you would know if you bothered reading other posts. And your last sentence doesn't even make sense:

"If you don't believe what the good book says" (a claim neither of us have made, but whatever...) "then it's either fiction or myth but certainly not truth." So it is only fiction or myth if we don't believe what it says? Since when does belief in something dictate its veracity? Or are you simply saying that anyone who doesn't believe what it says must then believe it is either fiction or myth?

So, are you simply saying that because you don't believe what it says, then you believe it is either fiction or myth? Fine, you are of course free to believe whatever you like, but you tossing out mindless opinions is relatively useless - tossing them out as though they are fact because they are your opinion is dishonest. So, you are at best useless, and at worst dishonest.

Once more, I'm proud for you.

Far from it. Enjoy!

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you both literally believe the universe was created in 6 days?

I'm proud for you.

From a vedic perspective, a day of Lord Brahma's, the first created being in this universe, lasts for 4.32 billion years, from our perspective. This is equal to one breath (inhale) of God (Krishna/Vishnu).

Hopefully this piece of information will give you some idea of my understanding of creation from the perspective of God.


Solus,


Time (no pun) is not on my side right now.
I will respond soon. Thanks.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SolusCado,

I mean that the Bible, or more specifically, the scriptures - were never intended to be books that explained physical processes. The attempt to turn it into that is what causes modern, thinking, rational, 'scientific' people to call it mythology and fiction. Because that is exactly what mythologies do - they create elaborate fictions to explain the otherwise unexplainable.

It is however intended to reveal the origin of the physical processes, ie, God did it.

No, "bad science" is when you try to assert things that have no experimental support, cannot be disproven by experimentation, or are outright in opposition to experimental observations. Science is not a religion, and people being good or bad is irrelevant. That is the domain for religion.

Anything conducted by people has the potential to used badly.
What is your explanation for the 'piltdown man' fiasco?

Actually, it is believed that the Big Bang did not create matter, but rather matter was formed in the moments immediately following the Big Bang - a concept that is supported by Genesis, wherein first God created light, and then God created 'earth', which is notably lower case - I believe the intent was simply to say 'matter', but once again - since there was no such concept back then, I wouldn't have expected them to use a distinct word delineating the difference.

Genesis states that "the earth was void and without form", not that it didn't exist and then it existed.
"Formation of matter" was meant as fashioning what was present, not creation.

Please stay on track here - your example of the use of the word "and" is a different definition than the one I used in my original example - one in which the point of the statement would be to identify that light was created at God's will - much like me buying a cup of coffee.

You expressed agreement of the primary definition of "and", I merely used its own example.

There is still no reason to think that the statement carried with it any attempt to convey how light was created, and you have still not provided any such reason - which is why I may be getting more and more condescending. When people can't/don't stick to the conversation, I get very frustrated or dismissive.

Based on my chosed definition, there is every reason to think that is how light was created.
Your objection was one of linguistics, now you must see that it could mean that. Surely!

It isn't that I think they would have had trouble accepting it; it's that the Bible (as I said in the very first sentence above) is NOT a science textbook.

It would not have to be a science textbook to contain information of pre-universe origins.

Never was. So I wouldn't expect scientific explanations to be included in it. Why would you? (PLEASE answer that question, since it seems to be a root issue at play here.)

Why would such an explanation be regarded any different to what the scripture already contains. They are both information which cannot be universaly proven?

Yes, it is older than Hebrew. And even the word "atom" comes from the Greeks around the time of Christ. It was however a concept (in the Greek) that everything is made up of constituent particles

And that would make them correct. Would it not?

- it was by no means an indication that they had any knowledge whatsoever of particle physics, subatomic particles, etc. Do you actually think it did? QUOTE]


So what? It clearly indicates that they have some kind of knowledge which lead them to conclude thusly.

Because if not, why do you even bring it up?

I brought it up because it was knowledge in ancient times despite not having a particle physics department at their places of learning.
IOW it's not exclusive to modern times.

You were just saying that I have not provided any support to my claims; now you say that you do remember me doing so - which is it?

I remember the "coffee" scenario, but it didn't really support your claim, which I pointed out.

You are now shoehorning God into a picture that severely insults his abilities. Who created nature?

Was nature created?

If nature is capable of generating life forms, and does so according to the 'abilities' instilled by God when He created nature in the first place, how is it not a testament to His Creation that such things came about.

It's the "how" we are discussing.

The very insertion of unnatural processes to explain that nature He created suggests that His initial creation was insufficient, that He didn't do a good enough job initially and had to toss out some magic to get it where He wanted it.

How is sound vibration an unatural process?
And what part of that excersise would you say was magical?
And how does it differ to your belief that matter and nature were created from scratch?

As to the idea of a "need" for God... well that is some of the worst Theology I've ever heard.

Without God, we wouldn't be here. Do you agree?

If we are saved through faith, then how can we ever be saved if God put us in a world that can only be explained by "God did it".

"God did it" is not the explanation, it's the answer.
The explanation is derived from understanding how.

Knowing that, we aren't exhibiting any faith at all when we come to such a conclusion; we are merely coming to a logical conclusion. If you think there "needs" to be a God to explain things, then you are severely lacking in faith.

I didn't say that.

You mistake "literalness" for "interpretation", a horribly common mistake in today's religions. You don't have to dismiss it as metaphor to look at the texts from a fresh perspective.

Why is there a need for interpretation if the writing is understandably clear?

Umm - I'm really not sure what you're point is here, as it once more seems completely irrelevant, but no - it doesn't surprise me at all given the fact that our religions are represented by people who are stuck in a mindset that is hundreds of years old. Just like a small group of adults would easily control a much larger number of infants.

I don't know what to make of that.


jan.


p.s. computer still down. ran out of time.

jan.

 

[queengeek]

With what I have both seen and experienced in my life there is nothing that could ever change my point of view.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
It is however intended to reveal the origin of the physical processes, ie, God did it.

Right, so why are you so confident that evolutionary processes are not in fact HOW God did it?

Anything conducted by people has the potential to used badly.
What is your explanation for the 'piltdown man' fiasco?

More bad science. I never suggested religions are the only source of bad science, though quite frankly the piltdown man fiasco was probably in reaction to religious opposition anyway. All of these are excellent examples of why religion needs to stick to religion, and science needs to stick to science. It is just as absurd for the atheists on here to suggest that science somehow disproves God as it is for the theists to suggest that the Bible (or whatever religious scriptures they use) provides a scientific context for anything.

Genesis states that "the earth was void and without form", not that it didn't exist and then it existed.
"Formation of matter" was meant as fashioning what was present, not creation.

Yes, AFTER God created the Heavens and the earth (also AFTER God created light), it was noted that the earth was void and without form, much like matter in the moments immediately following the Big Bang. It wasn't until later (as described in both Genesis and our current scientific models) that the earth (matter) coalesced into something with form.

Based on my chosed definition, there is every reason to think that is how light was created.
Your objection was one of linguistics, now you must see that it could mean that. Surely!

But that it "can" doesn't mean that it "does", and when there is a mountain of other scientific evidence that suggests that it DOESN'T, it becomes time to reevaluate what you think it means.

It would not have to be a science textbook to contain information of pre-universe origins.

This is new - "pre-universe origins"? I'm afraid I don't see how this is relevant to the current conversation at all. Care to expound?

Why would such an explanation be regarded any different to what the scripture already contains. They are both information which cannot be universaly proven?

Again, don't know what you are talking about. What explanation? What "both information" are you referring to?

And that would make them correct. Would it not?

So what? It clearly indicates that they have some kind of knowledge which lead them to conclude thusly.

Just answer flat out - do you believe the ancient peoples of the Old Testament had knowledge of particle physics or not? Enough of this worming around...

I brought it up because it was knowledge in ancient times despite not having a particle physics department at their places of learning.
IOW it's not exclusive to modern times.

So you DO believe the ancient peoples of the OT did indeed have knowledge of particle physics? WHY do you believe that? At what point do you believe that information was lost, and why?

I remember the "coffee" scenario, but it didn't really support your claim, which I pointed out.

No, you didn't. You merely pointed out that you believed the Bible was saying more, and you gave no reasoning for that, other than a generic "It's God, so it CAN mean more". As noted above, just because words CAN have additional meaning doesn't mean they necessarily DO - and when evidence points to the additional meaning you want to impose being false, it is only the fool who tries to stick with the additional meaning. You have still given absolutely ZERO reasoning to support your belief. You have merely stated (again and again) that it IS your belief. Which is fine - but acknowledge that it is your own belief and move on - don't try to insist that it is the only possible interpretation of Genesis... that it is somehow "what it actually says", and other interpretations (which are arguably CLOSER to "what it actually says", since they don't attach so much additional meaning) are in fact NOT "what it actually says".

Was nature created?

Yes, of course - that is my entire position. Do you disagree? (If not, why are you even bringing it up?

It's the "how" we are discussing.

Obviously - what does that have to do with my statement?

How is sound vibration an unatural process?
And what part of that excersise would you say was magical?
And how does it differ to your belief that matter and nature were created from scratch?

Starting with the fact that sound doesn't travel through a vacuum, so for sound to have been responsible for the genesis of matter and energy it would have to have existing matter and energy through which to reverbate. If one it so make such a claim, where did the initial matter and energy come from? And for that matter, sound can only manipulate matter, not create it. In fact, according to the law of conservation of energy, it is not possible to "create" matter at all - much less from this elusive "sound" that wouldn't have had any matter through which to reverbate in the first place. The difference (to answer your second question) is that I am not imbuing a natural process with Godlike powers. I am imbuing an omnipotent God with Godlike powers. (He created time/space/matter/energy through a non-natural mechanism - i.e. the Big Bang [or, if we find that our universe and it's Big Bang is just one of many, then whatever created the multiverse].) Since He created nature, it follows that the creation itself could not have been natural - since there was no such thing as "natural" until He created nature. You are trying to suggest that He used a "natural" process to create Nature itself, and then once it was created He then used UNNATURAL processes to further the progress of Creation. It is wholly illogical, and once more - there is no foundation for your belief, beyond the fact that you CHOOSE (your words) to use a specific potential definition for Scriptural content. What makes that so abhorrent to me is that you can CHOOSE a definition for Scripture that is perfectly in alignment with logic and scientific evidence, and yet you CHOOSE not to. It's like knowing that stepping off the edge of a cliff will cause you to fall to your death, but you choose to not believe it "just because". I personally can only understand such a thing as childish stubborness.

Without God, we wouldn't be here. Do you agree?

Yes, of course - but I recognize that that is my BELIEF - one that I have based on faith.

"God did it" is not the explanation, it's the answer.
The explanation is derived from understanding how.

You just said gibberish. "God did it" is the answer to what question? And, to the question of "HOW God did it", you have yet to provide an explanation - unless you are suggesting the sounds waves from His voice was the How - which once more is completely irrational impossibilities (if one is to stay in alignment with the physical laws of the universe). If your explanation to THAT is "Because it's God", then once again - "God did it" is INDEED your explanation.

Why is there a need for interpretation if the writing is understandably clear?

By your own admission, you CHOOSE to believe a specific definition is the correct one. Since there are multiple definitions, you have CHOSEN one specific interpretation. The fact that everything you derive from that choice is illogical and irrational is what mandates a DIFFERENT interpretation. As to the statement that the writing is "understandably clear", you have provided absolutely no justification for that statement. Why choose one definition over another? How is one definition "understandably clear" and another is not? (Particularly since the one you choose leads to horribly flawed science, and the one you refuse to accept fits in perfectly with everything we know.)