How I see Genesis 1&2

[Morcova]

Must be fun to mock people with whom you disagree. Not a very effective debate technique tho.

I wasn't debating, I was stating fact.

 

[SNPete]

I wasn't debating, I was stating fact.

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : [SIZE=-1]FEAT[/SIZE] b : [SIZE=-1]CRIME[/SIZE] <accessory after the fact> c archaic : [SIZE=-1]ACTION[/SIZE]
2 archaic : [SIZE=-1]PERFORMANCE[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]DOING[/SIZE]
3 : the quality of being actual : [SIZE=-1]ACTUALITY[/SIZE] <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

Main Entry: 1rid·i·cule
Pronunciation: 'ri-d&-"kyül
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Latin; French, from Latin ridiculum jest
: the act of ridiculing : [SIZE=-1]DERISION[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]MOCKERY[/SIZE]

Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides


I say you are not stating a fact, but instead are not debating. Such is the tactic of the atheist when faced with ideas that contradict their POV.

Funny how this thread has been degenerated by atheists when faced with a reasonable explaination of why Genesis 1 does not line up with scientific thought. Instead of debate one gets ridicule and snide remarks. This is the kind of stuff that strengthens my feeling that I may be right.

None of you have said I am wrong and why. You just say I am a fool, in so many words. Interesting. IMO, you have nothing. Smoke.

 

[Mumbo]

None of you have said I am wrong and why. You just say I am a fool, in so many words. Interesting. IMO, you have nothing. Smoke.

You've been ignoring my posts, then

 

[Morcova]

I say you are not stating a fact,

That's fine, until you can prove otherwise I'll stay with reality you can stick with magic.

but instead are not debating.

I stated I wasn't.

Such is the tactic of the atheist when faced with ideas that contradict their POV.

Stating facts? Ok.

Funny how this thread has been degenerated by atheists when faced with a reasonable explaination of why Genesis 1 does not line up with scientific thought.

Sorry but I won't pretend to believe in your magic.

Instead of debate one gets ridicule and snide remarks.

You've gotten neither.

This is the kind of stuff that strengthens my feeling that I may be right.

That's word for word what a fellow I used to talk to in college told me when I explained to him why his theory that earth was hollow and reptilians who lived in the earth controlled everything was wrong.

None of you have said I am wrong and why. You just say I am a fool, in so many words. Interesting. IMO, you have nothing. Smoke.

Except people have don't just that, shown you why you were wrong. You just ignore them.

 

[wiske]

And so it always comes down to magic.

Why do you think that? Isn't it so that the vast majority of Christians don't believe in magic, that paying attention to magic is considered a sin?

Since your post seems to be in answer to someone mentioning the word "miracle", you have perhaps a problem with definitions. Magic is performed by wicked humans, such as the well-known atheist and Christian-basher "the Amazing Randi". Miracles, OTOH, are performed by God Almighty, or through His intervention.

'Real magic' (instead of stage magic) is non-functional, and so nothing comes ever down to magic, the opposite of what you wrote.

Life must be so easy for creationist, if you don't know the answer.. it's magic!

Life is not easy; it is a struggle.

Don't know what fuels stars? Magic!

Stars don't use fuel; they are not fuelled! This is like asking "how does a plumber fix electricity leaks".

An astrophysicist could answer your question, but only partially.

Don't know how the body heals? Magic!

Ask a physiologist.

Don't know where babies come from? Magic!

I'd be inclined to answer 'ask a biologist', but most non-biologists know the answer as well. The majority of babies come from China and India (and a few other countries).

Nothing personal, but I think you shouldn't ask questions about stars, imho, especially when your assumed inferiors are better 'au courant' than you.

 

[Upisoft]

Depends on the question.

At times, "why" questions are only as meaningful as you want them to be. "How did life come to exist" is a question with a tangible answer, while "Why does life exist" only matters if you care to insert God. As implied by science's answer to the "how" version of the question, life doesn't need a reason to exist, and needn't be questioned in the first place.

That the life doesn't need a reason to exist, doesn't mean that there isn't one.

"Why" questions, however, are not inherently unanswerable by science. The only problem is that they tend to breed more questions, and if you follow them back far enough, you eventually reach places that science has a tough time reaching.

Why is the sky blue? -> Why does light exist? -> Why does energy exist? -> Why does matter exist? -> Why did the Big Bang occur?

I didn't say that the science can't answer 'why' questions. Yes, it can.

Whether or not God should answer questions that science cannot is up to you. Just keep in mind that science has a good record when it comes to figuring things out.

And bad record when it comes to put reason behind.

 

[Upisoft]

you are claiming that the Bible does not clash with what we see

I don't know what you see and what you do not see, but it is clear that we don't see the same. Your words prove it, because I've never claimed such thing.

 

[Mumbo]

That the life doesn't need a reason to exist, doesn't mean that there isn't one.

True enough, I'm just saying that a reason for life isn't a prerequisite for life itself. It isn't essential to look for a reason if you're satisfied with the answers for how life came to exist.

I didn't say that the science can't answer 'why' questions. Yes, it can.

Alright, I'll rephrase. I simply disagree that science's answers "tend to be shallow."

And bad record when it comes to put reason behind.

When it comes to leaving reason behind, you mean? That depends on your point of view, I suppose. I've never had much faith in faith myself, and I think that instilling it into science severely limits science's reach. It's better to assume that God isn't the answer to all the tricky questions.

 

[Upisoft]

True enough, I'm just saying that a reason for life isn't a prerequisite for life itself. It isn't essential to look for a reason if you're satisfied with the answers for how life came to exist.

That's when we start to differ. As what is "essential" is personal opinion. You may find "essential" that you want to know only "how". That's fine with me, but don't try to force your "essential" on me.

Alright, I'll rephrase. I simply disagree that science's answers "tend to be shallow."

I said than only about answers of "why" questions. And seems you agree with me, because almost every answer of an "why" question leads to another "why" question. Thus initial answer does not contain useful information.

When it comes to leaving reason behind, you mean? That depends on your point of view, I suppose. I've never had much faith in faith myself, and I think that instilling it into science severely limits science's reach. It's better to assume that God isn't the answer to all the tricky questions.

That's good idea, but science is incapable to give answers to all questions. Telling the people "stop to ask!" or "there is no answer" or "your question is meaningless" is not what I will agree with.

 

[artybloke]

Also Jesus referred to it as literally true

He used it as an illustration in a talk about something else. That no more qualifies as refering to it as literally true than me saying that a handsome man is an Adonis means that I belief in the existence of a literal Adonis.

 

[Morcova]

Why do you think that? Isn't it so that the vast majority of Christians don't believe in magic, that paying attention to magic is considered a sin?

Since your post seems to be in answer to someone mentioning the word "miracle", you have perhaps a problem with definitions. Magic is performed by wicked humans, such as the well-known atheist and Christian-basher "the Amazing Randi". Miracles, OTOH, are performed by God Almighty, or through His intervention.

Believing in miracles IS believing in magic.

 

[SNPete]

Believing in miracles IS believing in magic.

Not according to Webster:

Main Entry: 1mag·ic
Pronunciation: 'ma-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English magique, from Middle French, from Latin magice, from Greek magikE, feminine of magikos Magian, magical, from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian magus sorcerer
1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : [SIZE=-1]ENCHANTMENT[/SIZE]
3 : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand

Main Entry: mir·a·cle
Pronunciation: 'mir-i-k&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

Like a former poster said: you seem to have a problem with definitions. Magic is tricks performed by a human. Miracles are done by God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Magic is tricks performed by a human. Miracles are done by God.

 

[Morcova]

Not according to Webster:

Main Entry: 1mag·ic
Pronunciation: 'ma-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English magique, from Middle French, from Latin magice, from Greek magikE, feminine of magikos Magian, magical, from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian magus sorcerer
1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : [SIZE=-1]ENCHANTMENT[/SIZE]
3 : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand

Main Entry: mir·a·cle
Pronunciation: 'mir-i-k&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

Like a former poster said: you seem to have a problem with definitions. Magic is tricks performed by a human. Miracles are done by God.

Not really, silly magic tricks are silly magic tricks. Only difference is when you decide that it was god who did it you call it a miracle.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really, silly magic tricks are silly magic tricks. Only difference is when you decide that it was god who did it you call it a miracle.

Whoever raised the dead using magic?

 

[michabo]

Here, I'll make it easy for you.

Not according to Webster:

Main Entry: 1mag·ic
Pronunciation: 'ma-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English magique, from Middle French, from Latin magice, from Greek magikE, feminine of magikos Magian, magical, from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian magus sorcerer
1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : [SIZE=-1]ENCHANTMENT[/SIZE]
3 : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand

Main Entry: mir·a·cle
Pronunciation: 'mir-i-k&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

Like a former poster said: you seem to have a problem with definitions. Magic is tricks performed by a human. Miracles are done by God.

Miracles are magic done by a god.

 

[Mumbo]

That's when we start to differ. As what is "essential" is personal opinion. You may find "essential" that you want to know only "how". That's fine with me, but don't try to force your "essential" on me.

Fair enough, I never intended that.

I said than only about answers of "why" questions. And seems you agree with me, because almost every answer of an "why" question leads to another "why" question. Thus initial answer does not contain useful information.

The initial answers do, the final ones don't.

That's good idea, but science is incapable to give answers to all questions.

Which questions can it not answer, then, and how do you know? It's unfair to arbitrarily place limits on what science can and can't do.

Telling the people "stop to ask!" or "there is no answer" or "your question is meaningless" is not what I will agree with.

We'll have to differ on that point, then. Some questions don't have to have an answer. A question like "Why did life come into being" allows more than one kind of response. One answer is that God created life. Another response is that life didn't need a reason or motivation to form, it just did so spontaneously. Although only one of these responses actually answers the question, while the other contradicts it, both can be valid. It just depends upon what you choose to believe.

 

[Lludmila]

"Not obeying physical laws" = magic..... ALWAYS?

 

[Upisoft]

The initial answers do, the final ones don't.

That's why I asked a question and wanted an answer. Without that answer I can't show you my point. Will you, please, answer me why (almost all) things fall on Earth when they're dropped?

Which questions can it not answer, then, and how do you know? It's unfair to arbitrarily place limits on what science can and can't do.

Q1: "Do we know everything?"
Q2: "Is everything we know 100% correct?"
Is that enough?

We'll have to differ on that point, then. Some questions don't have to have an answer. A question like "Why did life come into being" allows more than one kind of response. One answer is that God created life. Another response is that life didn't need a reason or motivation to form, it just did so spontaneously. Although only one of these responses actually answers the question, while the other contradicts it, both can be valid. It just depends upon what you choose to believe.

Yes, some questions don't have to have an answer, but that doesn't mean they don't have one. Or more...

 

[Morcova]

Whoever raised the dead using magic?

That's what necromancy is all about.