What if you are God?

[Assyrian]

It is different.

Did it take science a few hundreds of years to actually prove the simple idea of heliocentrism (Until we can make ourselves into the air? )?

By "make ourselves into the air" I presume you mean space travel? Heliocentrism was well established long before space travel, but established the way science establishes itself, by coming up with evidence to support the theory, not by deriving some sort of philosophical 'proof'. But you know that.

We have much better evidence for the age of the earth and the universe, established by multiple independent sources, than the evidence science had for heliocentrism before space flight. It is not that long ago space flight was not just impossible but inconceivable. The church accepted heliocentrism long before Jules Verne wrote his wildly fantastical from the Earth to the Moon in 1865.

Why do you think the church was right to accept heliocentrism and reinterpret scripture, simply when the majority of scientist accepted it, but do not apply the same sound principle with the age of the earth?

I don't think science could ever understand the nature of time (when you get into it, I think one has to deal with problems like multiple universes etc.). So I don't think the radiometric dating MODEL would be proven true anytime in the future.

If you want you can say that from God's perspective outside our time, six days passed during the creation of the world. That fits your quest for answers outside our universe. It also fits the biblical teaching that a day in God sight can be vastly greater than our time.

But if you are looking for 70 million years strata to become anything other than 70 million times longer than what we know as a year, you won't find it in multiple universes or quantum time. Any quantum analysis of time will simply be the same for 70 million years as it is for 1 year, only 70 million times longer.

And I do think the time is on my side. The more we know science, the more literally true Gen 1 and Noah's Flood will become. I have demonstrated several such examples in my Science in Bible series.

Creationists have had over two centuries to come up with evidence of the flood and a young earth. If their views bore any relationship to the real world they should have come up with something by now.

 

[juvenissun]

By "make ourselves into the air" I presume you mean space travel? Heliocentrism was well established long before space travel, but established the way science establishes itself, by coming up with evidence to support the theory, not by deriving some sort of philosophical 'proof'. But you know that.

We have much better evidence for the age of the earth and the universe, established by multiple independent sources, than the evidence science had for heliocentrism before space flight. It is not that long ago space flight was not just impossible but inconceivable. The church accepted heliocentrism long before Jules Verne wrote his wildly fantastical from the Earth to the Moon in 1865.

Why do you think the church was right to accept heliocentrism and reinterpret scripture, simply when the majority of scientist accepted it, but do not apply the same sound principle with the age of the earth?


If you want you can say that from God's perspective outside our time, six days passed during the creation of the world. That fits your quest for answers outside our universe. It also fits the biblical teaching that a day in God sight can be vastly greater than our time.

But if you are looking for 70 million years strata to become anything other than 70 million times longer than what we know as a year, you won't find it in multiple universes or quantum time. Any quantum analysis of time will simply be the same for 70 million years as it is for 1 year, only 70 million times longer.


Creationists have had over two centuries to come up with evidence of the flood and a young earth. If their views bore any relationship to the real world they should have come up with something by now.

If you accept that God's time is different from our time, then we are in agreement with the nature of time (this is an agreement based on faith, not on science). So, all radiometric dating give are only marks on the sequence of events and scaled intervals of events. I do not treat it as real time because we do not know what does our time really mean. I am not sure God's time only applied to the period of creation in Gen 1. And I am not sure that the three continuous daytime for Joshua needs to be a figurative description.

Geological experience can only be traced back at best a few hundred years. Beyond that, all geological knowledge is based on reasoning. Once we start to reason, then the inferred time needed for the events could not be treated as the time of same nature as we experienced. For example, if anthropologist suggested the caveman period lasted 1 million years long, I will always be skeptical on what they said no matter what method they used to get the date (you do not need to argue on the methods of dating, I know them all, include tree rings, ice cores etc.). To me, I only accept a real length of time (the time as we experienced) about a few tens of thousand years. Beyond that, I accept the reasoned time, but I don't believe it is real.

Well, I don't believe, but you do believe. We both do not know the truth, only believe.

 

[Assyrian]

If you accept that God's time is different from our time, then we are in agreement with the nature of time (this is an agreement based on faith, not on science). So, all radiometric dating give are only marks on the sequence of events and scaled intervals of events. I do not treat it as real time because we do not know what does our time really mean. I am not sure God's time only applied to the period of creation in Gen 1. And I am not sure that the three continuous daytime for Joshua needs to be a figurative description.

If you are saying God's perspective and or the nature of time are your reasons for not treating time as real, this applies to all measures of time, waiting for the microwave to ping, or the passage of time since your earliest memory of playing on a swing, you cannot single out radiometric dates. In fact when Moses introduces us to God's time in Psalm 90, it is the human lifespan that is compared to the passage of time from morning to evening, a mere twelve hours in God's sight. Psalm 90:5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning: 6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. Now this does not say human time measurements are not real. Just that God has a different perspective. None of this gives you a basis to dismiss radiometric dates as any less real than the date on the newspaper you buy on the street.

Isaiah 40:12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?
13 Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD, or what man shows him his counsel?
14 Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?
15 Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, and are accounted as the dust on the scales; behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust.

Would you really say estimates of world population or of the volume of water in the oceans are not 'real' because God has a different perspective? Would you argue that we cannot estimate the mass of Mt Everest because God has a different scale or because we do not know what mass really is and still hunt for the Higgs boson?

Geological experience can only be traced back at best a few hundred years. Beyond that, all geological knowledge is based on reasoning. Once we start to reason, then the inferred time needed for the events could not be treated as the time of same nature as we experienced. For example, if anthropologist suggested the caveman period lasted 1 million years long, I will always be skeptical on what they said no matter what method they used to get the date (you do not need to argue on the methods of dating, I know them all, include tree rings, ice cores etc.). To me, I only accept a real length of time (the time as we experienced) about a few tens of thousand years. Beyond that, I accept the reasoned time, but I don't believe it is real.

Well, I don't believe, but you do believe. We both do not know the truth, only believe.

All time measurements are based on reason, and historically, science took off when we learned to use reason to measure time rather than a vague estimate based on the how far the sun had gone down. When people measured the size of france, or the earth itself, they used reason rather than a giant measuring tape. If you reject reason based measurements confirmed by different reason based methods, there is nothing in science that you should not reject.

Calculation of the heliocentric orbits of the earth and planets and the gravitational forces holding them in orbit around the sun were all based on reason, they still are really. So why would you have accepted reason based heliocentrism, long before man ventured into space to actually experience how the laws of physics operate out there, but simply when the majority of scientists accepted it.

And if the church solidly rejected the reality of heliocentrism until Sputnik, how foolish would that have made our witness? Can you imagine, we could probably still be rejecting heliocentism and labelling evidence from space travel as ‘Sputnikism’ whose real aim was a communist desire to discredit the gospel.

 

[Norton]

This is blasphemy! This is madness...



This



Is



Sparta!!!!!!111111111

 

[juvenissun]

If you are saying God's perspective and or the nature of time are your reasons for not treating time as real, this applies to all measures of time, waiting for the microwave to ping, or the passage of time since your earliest memory of playing on a swing, you cannot single out radiometric dates. In fact when Moses introduces us to God's time in Psalm 90, it is the human lifespan that is compared to the passage of time from morning to evening, a mere twelve hours in God's sight. Psalm 90:5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning: 6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. Now this does not say human time measurements are not real. Just that God has a different perspective. None of this gives you a basis to dismiss radiometric dates as any less real than the date on the newspaper you buy on the street.

Isaiah 40:12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?
13 Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD, or what man shows him his counsel?
14 Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?
15 Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, and are accounted as the dust on the scales; behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust.

Would you really say estimates of world population or of the volume of water in the oceans are not 'real' because God has a different perspective? Would you argue that we cannot estimate the mass of Mt Everest because God has a different scale or because we do not know what mass really is and still hunt for the Higgs boson?



All time measurements are based on reason, and historically, science took off when we learned to use reason to measure time rather than a vague estimate based on the how far the sun had gone down. When people measured the size of france, or the earth itself, they used reason rather than a giant measuring tape. If you reject reason based measurements confirmed by different reason based methods, there is nothing in science that you should not reject.

Calculation of the heliocentric orbits of the earth and planets and the gravitational forces holding them in orbit around the sun were all based on reason, they still are really. So why would you have accepted reason based heliocentrism, long before man ventured into space to actually experience how the laws of physics operate out there, but simply when the majority of scientists accepted it.

And if the church solidly rejected the reality of heliocentrism until Sputnik, how foolish would that have made our witness? Can you imagine, we could probably still be rejecting heliocentism and labelling evidence from space travel as ‘Sputnikism’ whose real aim was a communist desire to discredit the gospel.

Thanks for the argument. You seems to be quite interested in this topic. I am tired of it. Sorry. I might pick it up later when idea sparks again.

 

[Assyrian]

It's been fun. See you later Juve.

 

[mooduck1]

So I was pondering-
Since so many people thought that my OP was downright blasphemy in that it was trying to get people to try to understand God by trying to put ourselves in God's Shoes and attempt to get people to think about how God communicates with us with the same scriptures through out 1000's of years, I wonder if it is this same - what I would consider- hypersensitivity that pretty much forces a person to completely ignore scientific advances in the last 100 years, and cling to their old literalist interpretation of all scripture. Any thoughts?

 

[juvenissun]

So I was pondering-
Since so many people thought that my OP was downright blasphemy in that it was trying to get people to try to understand God by trying to put ourselves in God's Shoes and attempt to get people to think about how God communicates with us with the same scriptures through out 1000's of years, I wonder if it is this same - what I would consider- hypersensitivity that pretty much forces a person to completely ignore scientific advances in the last 100 years, and cling to their old literalist interpretation of all scripture. Any thoughts?

I don't think you can give any example to what you said ("in the past 100 years"). Everything creationist argued are based on science (good or bad), not on faith, which is only underneath the argument.

We do not have to pretend to be God in order to argue on God's creation.

 

[mooduck1]

I don't think you can give any example to what you said ("in the past 100 years"). Everything creationist argued are based on science (good or bad), not on faith, which is only underneath the argument.

We do not have to pretend to be God in order to argue on God's creation.

You don't think that the Methods that creationists use are flawed? After all, a Good Scientist should be almost excited when he is prooven to be wrong. For mos creationists I know "old world theology" is so ingrained in what the believe that to disprove their belief would kill thier faith! And so They demonize or condemn the data they get that contradicts their belief system out of hand without even really, seriosuly looking at it. Funny thing is though, thye aren't really defending God or his word, but simply thier own understanding of it!
Ever hear the expression ' don't judge a man til you walk a mile in his moccasins'? Obviosuly, in reality, we can't stand in God's shoes however, I have found that role playing can be very helpful when trying to get to understand on a concepts ona deeper or personal level. If we assume (as most scientist suggest ) that the world is billions of years old, and then we assume there is a creator behinde it, (as you and I bothy do) Ibelieve to totally relevant to ponder God's methods to get to a deeper appreciation for his message.

 

[juvenissun]

You don't think that the Methods that creationists use are flawed? After all, a Good Scientist should be almost excited when he is prooven to be wrong. For mos creationists I know "old world theology" is so ingrained in what the believe that to disprove their belief would kill thier faith! And so They demonize or condemn the data they get that contradicts their belief system out of hand without even really, seriosuly looking at it. Funny thing is though, thye aren't really defending God or his word, but simply thier own understanding of it!
Ever hear the expression ' don't judge a man til you walk a mile in his moccasins'? Obviosuly, in reality, we can't stand in God's shoes however, I have found that role playing can be very helpful when trying to get to understand on a concepts ona deeper or personal level. If we assume (as most scientist suggest ) that the world is billions of years old, and then we assume there is a creator behinde it, (as you and I bothy do) Ibelieve to totally relevant to ponder God's methods to get to a deeper appreciation for his message.

Creationist may not be able to prove what they said about science is correct, so can't non-creationist. Evolution is a gigantic structure of science. But it still can not give a definite answer to the origin problem.

To pretend God is a wrong way to understand God. God have already gave us all we need to understand Him (II Peter 3).

 

[mooduck1]

You know, there are two ways to tackle art history. One way is to learn ABOUT the Painters, know the dates the died and what influenced them and who, and to learn about some of the materials that were available and some of the social structures that might have dictated what and how they painted etc. For most people,this is an accptablelevel of study.

I myself am a painter. I love The masters, Leonard, Michelangelo, etc, and for me, the surface level understanding of the facts are nice and necessary but not complete. Sure, I love looking at the sisteen chapel and the mona lisa and things, but do you know, what really facinates me is looking at the sketches of the artists. I love to study not only the finished product but also the METHODS behinde the finished product. When you can grasp even a small understanding of the methods, you understand more completely things that you could never gleen from staring at the finished product behinde a glass. I agree that the Bible gives us everything we NEED to understand. I also, believe that the knowledge of the Bible goes far deeper than a surface level understanding of the script - the finished product. If one seriosuly wants to understand the Bible, and it's creator then one should try to uinderstand something of the METHODS that the creator used to create it. What were it's influences? Who was the orgianl audience? How does The Bible not only speak to us, but also to ancient nomadic sheepherders? These are not NECESSARY questions for understanding NECESSARY information, HOWEVER, if you wish to understand the creator of both the Bible and the Earth on that deeper more real, more personal level, then these questions must be asked. That is what the OP is designed to do - to get you thinking about methods not just the finished product.