Formal Debate: Busterdog and Willtor

[busterdog]

Response: I don't think God has given direct revelation on such matters. Geology, as a directed discipline, is a relatively new field next to theology. I certainly agree that if God were to reveal facts of geology (e.g. the shape and content of the earth) that it would be more than reasonable to believe these things.

We know that some ancient people accepted geocentrism. By the time of Galileo and then Hubble, we essentially expanded our collective field of knowledge. We went from an isolated planetary perspective to being one part of one of many galaxies. Yet, that "push" to advance the boundaries of knowledge may be a relatively small advance compared to the questions we now have. There is much more to know than we have ever discovered -- and possibly behing impenetrable boundaries. And for issues, we have no methods, or virtually none. We have neither found the edge of our universe, nor its center. We appear to know only 4 of 10 or more dimensions. If anything, we have discovered boundaries more imposing and more isolating the more we "know. " Thus, hasn't the need for an answer outside of ourselves, and from God directly, only become more necessary and more essential to know how things really are? If the origin of our world is tied only to more unknowable quantities than we had any idea of at the time of a flat earth, are we really advancing in our knowledge? Aren't we just getting more "frustrated" in our efforts to know how things really are?

Question: You're right, of course, that people spoke with metaphors and idioms then as they do now. But you and this Church Father are reading through the same text and coming to different conclusions about the same passages: ie - whether they are metaphorical or literal. How would you try to come to some agreement on these matters?

Well, first I would try to make sure I wouldn't be stoned or incinerated for raising the issue. As for the flat earth, there are any number examples of natural and better models to explain the oceans. Drops of rain or other water droplets of dew or in a fountain seem to approximate a sphere, except for gravity and wind. Quicksilver tries to become a sphere. THis is a far better model for earth and its oceans -- or at least a reasonable explanation for something not empiracally explored. Orbital mechanics show many anomalies. The geocentrist position would represent disorder. It simply can't explain lots of motion, except very artificially. And, if Jesus can calm a lethal storm with a word, he can certainly choose a spherical earth over a flat one. We simply establish what is plausible and refuse to dictate to Him that his choices are limited by our knowledge. And all these choices fit the text. God seemed to tell us most of what need to know about cosmology in Gen 1-2. Psalms just doesn't look anything like that type of exposition.

If anyone was listening at that point, I would also say, by the way, we have been to the moon and we can see from the moon that the earth revolves around the sun and spins on its axis. And we telescopes and Mars probes, etc., etc.

 

[Willtor]

We know that some ancient people accepted geocentrism. By the time of Galileo and then Hubble, we essentially expanded our collective field of knowledge. We went from an isolated planetary perspective to being one part of one of many galaxies. Yet, that "push" to advance the boundaries of knowledge may be a relatively small advance compared to the questions we now have. There is much more to know than we have ever discovered -- and possibly behing impenetrable boundaries. And for issues, we have no methods, or virtually none. We have neither found the edge of our universe, nor its center. We appear to know only 4 of 10 or more dimensions. If anything, we have discovered boundaries more imposing and more isolating the more we "know. " Thus, hasn't the need for an answer outside of ourselves, and from God directly, only become more necessary and more essential to know how things really are? If the origin of our world is tied only to more unknowable quantities than we had any idea of at the time of a flat earth, are we really advancing in our knowledge? Aren't we just getting more "frustrated" in our efforts to know how things really are?

Response: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "how things really are." I'll assume you mean knowledge of God, not necessarily knowledge of the cosmos (and certainly correct me if I'm backwards). I would say that the former sort of knowledge is no more or less essential than it has ever been. That is, it is paramount. But you are right that there is at least one way in which this knowledge resembles other sorts of knowledge: the more one knows, the more one realizes one doesn't know. As the circle of knowledge increases in radius, its circumference touches more outside of it. This is not to disparage what one knows, now. I don't expect to wake up tomorrow and realize that God is not Triune.

Well, first I would try to make sure I wouldn't be stoned or incinerated for raising the issue. As for the flat earth, there are any number examples of natural and better models to explain the oceans. Drops of rain or other water droplets of dew or in a fountain seem to approximate a sphere, except for gravity and wind. Quicksilver tries to become a sphere. THis is a far better model for earth and its oceans -- or at least a reasonable explanation for something not empiracally explored. Orbital mechanics show many anomalies. The geocentrist position would represent disorder. It simply can't explain lots of motion, except very artificially. And, if Jesus can calm a lethal storm with a word, he can certainly choose a spherical earth over a flat one. We simply establish what is plausible and refuse to dictate to Him that his choices are limited by our knowledge. And all these choices fit the text. God seemed to tell us most of what need to know about cosmology in Gen 1-2. Psalms just doesn't look anything like that type of exposition.

If anyone was listening at that point, I would also say, by the way, we have been to the moon and we can see from the moon that the earth revolves around the sun and spins on its axis. And we telescopes and Mars probes, etc., etc.

Question: Do you think that your method of distinguishing your interpretation of the text from his, and asserting the superiority of yours, is largely based on sense and reason? Do you use the same reason regarding these sorts of passages outside of the Psalms?

 

[busterdog]

Response: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "how things really are." I'll assume you mean knowledge of God, not necessarily knowledge of the cosmos (and certainly correct me if I'm backwards). I would say that the former sort of knowledge is no more or less essential than it has ever been. That is, it is paramount. But you are right that there is at least one way in which this knowledge resembles other sorts of knowledge: the more one knows, the more one realizes one doesn't know. As the circle of knowledge increases in radius, its circumference touches more outside of it. This is not to disparage what one knows, now. I don't expect to wake up tomorrow and realize that God is not Triune.

To translate, how things really are means really whatever we observe.

Certainly particles on an individual basis behave as if on instruction from a place completely beyond our space and time. Our rocks and stars arguably seem to have a sufficient track record by current observations such that we overcome concerns that they themselves represent "spooky action at a distance". But, all of our cosmology is built upon the origination of what we know from things like singularities -- ie, events were our rules no longer apply and where, again, apparently things in our time and space have received instruction from something beyond. Big bang represents this type of event -- the great mass of everything coming into being behaves like the little particule to the extent that it breaks all the rules in a "spooky" way. I argue that man simply and arbitrarily chose to isolate that event to a particular part of our reconstructed history.

The question becomes, isn't what we are observing now caused by things we can't ever know anything about (practically speaking, for the time being at least)? Don't we at our peril assume that the only big deviation from our rules en masse was at an isolated period in our history 15 billion years ago?

Question: Do you think that your method of distinguishing your interpretation of the text from his, and asserting the superiority of yours, is largely based on sense and reason? Do you use the same reason regarding these sorts of passages outside of the Psalms?

Certainly we ask for the grace to understand for ourselves and others. But, the method itself is generally sense and reason. That is the method by which I distinguish the Psalms.

But, my sense and reason might be pushing a different way but for the grace to receive the text as inerrant -- (though I do personally recall large portions of scripture that I determined not to judge one way or another because it just didn't make sense to assume a final answer.). Reason helps to come to an inerrant position, to a point. This would motivate a person like me to find a literary distinction for geocentrism. But reason alone is probably not enough to reach the conclusion that the Word is inerrant. Too many times we come to a simple point of diversion where one system of knowledge must be chosen over another -- ie, human consensus and observation vs. revealed knowledge in the Word. What gets you over that? By reason, you can certainly identify the point where these two paths diverge and you can find reason on either side, but what tips the balance? I can't really expect that to be something within the province of human skill. Again, sense and reason can define, and even require, a fundamental dilemma by which you see that both positions have a basis in reason and fact. But, one would seem to be left with, well, a dilemma for human reason. Something else must tip the balance.

 

[Willtor]

To translate, how things really are means really whatever we observe.

Certainly particles on an individual basis behave as if on instruction from a place completely beyond our space and time. Our rocks and stars arguably seem to have a sufficient track record by current observations such that we overcome concerns that they themselves represent "spooky action at a distance". But, all of our cosmology is built upon the origination of what we know from things like singularities -- ie, events were our rules no longer apply and where, again, apparently things in our time and space have received instruction from something beyond. Big bang represents this type of event -- the great mass of everything coming into being behaves like the little particule to the extent that it breaks all the rules in a "spooky" way. I argue that man simply and arbitrarily chose to isolate that event to a particular part of our reconstructed history.

The question becomes, isn't what we are observing now caused by things we can't ever know anything about (practically speaking, for the time being at least)? Don't we at our peril assume that the only big deviation from our rules en masse was at an isolated period in our history 15 billion years ago?

Response: In a temporal, secondary sense, no. We can know quite a lot about it because it is there to be seen. In a primary sense, no. We have revelation from our Primary Source regarding the reasons for our existence. If there is something between primary and secondary causes, then yes. Such things would seem to be beyond our grasp.

In the context of the Big Bang, in tracing cause and effect (secondary) backwards, one comes to this strange phenomenon in which cause and effect (secondary) would seem to break down. This is because our notions of cause and effect (secondary) are related to time, and recently, time itself has been related to space. Thus, as one traces time backwards changes in space these changes influence the time being traced. If space becomes a singularity then time, too, is affected.

I'm afraid I may be butchering the actual Big Bang theory, but insofar as I understand, this is the reason science cannot measure things "prior" to it.

Certainly we ask for the grace to understand for ourselves and others. But, the method itself is generally sense and reason. That is the method by which I distinguish the Psalms.

But, my sense and reason might be pushing a different way but for the grace to receive the text as inerrant -- (though I do personally recall large portions of scripture that I determined not to judge one way or another because it just didn't make sense to assume a final answer.). Reason helps to come to an inerrant position, to a point. This would motivate a person like me to find a literary distinction for geocentrism. But reason alone is probably not enough to reach the conclusion that the Word is inerrant. Too many times we come to a simple point of diversion where one system of knowledge must be chosen over another -- ie, human consensus and observation vs. revealed knowledge in the Word. What gets you over that? By reason, you can certainly identify the point where these two paths diverge and you can find reason on either side, but what tips the balance? I can't really expect that to be something within the province of human skill. Again, sense and reason can define, and even require, a fundamental dilemma by which you see that both positions have a basis in reason and fact. But, one would seem to be left with, well, a dilemma for human reason. Something else must tip the balance.

Question: Again, then, how do you take ostensibly geocentric, flat earth, and foundation passages outside of the Psalms? To be sure, I'm not trying to persuade you that the Scriptures are not inerrant. Merely, if you are right and they are, are you saying that they are also metaphorical, or are you taking them in a different way?

 

[busterdog]

Response: In a temporal, secondary sense, no. We can know quite a lot about it because it is there to be seen. In a primary sense, no. We have revelation from our Primary Source regarding the reasons for our existence. If there is something between primary and secondary causes, then yes. Such things would seem to be beyond our grasp.

In the context of the Big Bang, in tracing cause and effect (secondary) backwards, one comes to this strange phenomenon in which cause and effect (secondary) would seem to break down. This is because our notions of cause and effect (secondary) are related to time, and recently, time itself has been related to space. Thus, as one traces time backwards changes in space these changes influence the time being traced. If space becomes a singularity then time, too, is affected.

I'm afraid I may be butchering the actual Big Bang theory, but insofar as I understand, this is the reason science cannot measure things "prior" to it.

I think you got it. So, you must then depend upon reliability and consistency in observations of everything that happens after that creation event? That way you know that the unexplainable origin does not lead to anomalous and unexplainable events throughout history, since you have consistency in observation and the ability to cross-check what you observe. Isn't it that consistency in observation that tells you what normal and real is? That way you can tell how much (or rule out that) the unexplainable is intruding upon your world of consistency?

Question: Again, then, how do you take ostensibly geocentric, flat earth, and foundation passages outside of the Psalms? To be sure, I'm not trying to persuade you that the Scriptures are not inerrant. Merely, if you are right and they are, are you saying that they are also metaphorical, or are you taking them in a different way?

Have a look at Psalm 19. No one really thinks the Psalmist thought God literally put the sun in a tabernacle of badger skins or whatever. So, why assume that the line the sun traces in the sky is anything more than the appearance of the sun's motion to a person on earth -- like the Fiddler on the Roof, Sunrise, Sunset.

Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

Psa 19:6 His going forth [is] from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

 

[Willtor]

I think you got it. So, you must then depend upon reliability and consistency in observations of everything that happens after that creation event? That way you know that the unexplainable origin does not lead to anomalous and unexplainable events throughout history, since you have consistency in observation and the ability to cross-check what you observe. Isn't it that consistency in observation that tells you what normal and real is? That way you can tell how much (or rule out that) the unexplainable is intruding upon your world of consistency?

Response: Not quite. I'll answer the first question and you can decide whether to rephrase the rest of the questions. Rather than thinking about it as knowing the beginning and inferring what follows, it might be better to think from the perspective of the here-and-now and inferring what has come before. For example, given the knowledge that the universe is expanding, one can hypothesize that the further back in time one considers, the smaller the universe was. Given that hypothesis, one asks oneself (and others) what else one might look for that would support or refute that hypothesis. It isn't about identifying a creation event and making observations from that point.

Have a look at Psalm 19. No one really thinks the Psalmist thought God literally put the sun in a tabernacle of badger skins or whatever. So, why assume that the line the sun traces in the sky is anything more than the appearance of the sun's motion to a person on earth -- like the Fiddler on the Roof, Sunrise, Sunset.

Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

Psa 19:6 His going forth [is] from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Question: My question had more to do with passages not in the Psalms. I can ask questions about the Psalms if you'd prefer.

 

[busterdog]

]Response: Not quite. I'll answer the first question and you can decide whether to rephrase the rest of the questions. Rather than thinking about it as knowing the beginning and inferring what follows, it might be better to think from the perspective of the here-and-now and inferring what has come before. For example, given the knowledge that the universe is expanding, one can hypothesize that the further back in time one considers, the smaller the universe was. Given that hypothesis, one asks oneself (and others) what else one might look for that would support or refute that hypothesis. It isn't about identifying a creation event and making observations from that point.

Either way, isn't the question the same? You are using consistency of observation in the academic world of the last 50 years or so in order build you model and exclude the unexplainable, spooky, fantastic and sometimes irrational behavior of things? Otherwise such capricious behavior would throw off all your models and make all of your observations suspect?

Question: My question had more to do with passages not in the Psalms. I can ask questions about the Psalms if you'd prefer.

By all means. You are doing a great job. So, carry on.

But, lets make your Question into a question, and I will answer what I assumed to be the question. The implied question is whether another biblical source is any more clear on this issue than Ps. 19. Yes, I admit rampant geocentrism at the time of any of the texts you pick. Even within Israel, I will assume for the sake of argument that many people made this mistake. But, since we are not just dealing any old cultural relic of the time period, I would use the clear evidence of Psalm 19 to say that at least one writer very clearly used the line of the sun across the earth's sky as a metaphor among other metaphors. I would again say it would be very bold to assume that a different biblical writer was not using this geocentric idiom as a mere literary device. One thing we do know: the scribes and rabbis knew all other existing scripture almost verbatim. There is a better case to be made for consistency in usage as among biblical writers than among semitic writers in general.

 

[Willtor]

Either way, isn't the question the same? You are using consistency of observation in the academic world of the last 50 years or so in order build you model and exclude the unexplainable, spooky, fantastic and sometimes irrational behavior of things? Otherwise such capricious behavior would throw off all your models and make all of your observations suspect?

Response: To the best of my knowledge I'm not doing that at all, unless you are saying that all things are fantastic. I'm not saying that all things are fantastic or that all things are not fantastic. Certainly, there is a correct sense in which all things are fantastic and there is no correct sense (of which I am aware) that all things are mundane. But as applies to our present discussion the question as to whether, e.g. background radiation, is a fantastic or a mundane thing (in other words, whether it fits with the natural order or not), I couldn't defend a position that argues that it is not mundane (even if, in a sense, it is also fantastic).

By all means. You are doing a great job. So, carry on.

But, lets make your Question into a question, and I will answer what I assumed to be the question. The implied question is whether another biblical source is any more clear on this issue than Ps. 19. Yes, I admit rampant geocentrism at the time of any of the texts you pick. Even within Israel, I will assume for the sake of argument that many people made this mistake. But, since we are not just dealing any old cultural relic of the time period, I would use the clear evidence of Psalm 19 to say that at least one writer very clearly used the line of the sun across the earth's sky as a metaphor among other metaphors. I would again say it would be very bold to assume that a different biblical writer was not using this geocentric idiom as a mere literary device. One thing we do know: the scribes and rabbis knew all other existing scripture almost verbatim. There is a better case to be made for consistency in usage as among biblical writers than among semitic writers in general.

Question: You may be right and the passages were intended as metaphors-only, and not literally. But to be precise, you saying that they were speaking metaphorically-only, even though the prevailing culture and commentators thought that it was intended literally. Is this a proper representation of your understanding of the matter?

 

[busterdog]

Response: To the best of my knowledge I'm not doing that at all, unless you are saying that all things are fantastic. I'm not saying that all things are fantastic or that all things are not fantastic. Certainly, there is a correct sense in which all things are fantastic and there is no correct sense (of which I am aware) that all things are mundane. But as applies to our present discussion the question as to whether, e.g. background radiation, is a fantastic or a mundane thing (in other words, whether it fits with the natural order or not), I couldn't defend a position that argues that it is not mundane (even if, in a sense, it is also fantastic).

Question: How about this, isn't consistency of observation is what allows us to infer the rules by which matter and energy behave? Things that don't behave as they should -- ie, all that wierd stuff from physics -- are presumed to have a marginal or insignigicant impact upon the rules. Thus your background radiation, pulsars, Hubble's constant, expansion of the universe, index fossils, C14 dating?

Question: You may be right and the passages were intended as metaphors-only, and not literally. But to be precise, you saying that they were speaking metaphorically-only, even though the prevailing culture and commentators thought that it was intended literally. Is this a proper representation of your understanding of the matter?

Response: Yes. I am sure they can still communicate to the geocentrist as effectively. Some scribes probably thought they were communicating geocentrism. That doesn't seem to matter, since all that is communicated in the text is appearance (as well as metaphor) -- which is neutral as far as cosmology goes. Accordingly, those who take the inerrant view are not bothered by the use of such idioms.

 

[Willtor]

Question: How about this, isn't consistency of observation is what allows us to infer the rules by which matter and energy behave? Things that don't behave as they should -- ie, all that wierd stuff from physics -- are presumed to have a marginal or insignigicant impact upon the rules. Thus your background radiation, pulsars, Hubble's constant, expansion of the universe, index fossils, C14 dating?

Response: I couldn't say for certain (I'm not an expert), but my understanding is not that the weirdness has little impact on more "macro" events, but that it isn't really so weird because it can be measured probabilistically. E.g. There is the possibility that all the air in my room will tunnel to one side and I'll suffocate, and individual particles are, in fact, doing just that at any given time, but the larger the group one looks at, the less probable it is that the whole group will do that.

I have some idea of what you're trying to get at, now, though. If I'm mistaken, feel free to ignore this whole part of my response. If I understand, you're pointing out the supposition that observation is not inherently deceptive (at least, not beyond the ability of reason to penetrate). For example, it appears that the Earth is flat (arguably, a deceptive point), but with some reason it can be argued with conviction that it is round (reason overcoming the deception). This, I certainly do think.

Response: Yes. I am sure they can still communicate to the geocentrist as effectively. Some scribes probably thought they were communicating geocentrism. That doesn't seem to matter, since all that is communicated in the text is appearance (as well as metaphor) -- which is neutral as far as cosmology goes. Accordingly, those who take the inerrant view are not bothered by the use of such idioms.

Question: I would posit that the reason that you know that these passages are metaphorical and not literal, and the reason the ancient fathers knew that they were both, is because you have good reason to think that the Earth is round (and is not at the center of the solar system, etc.). Would you agree with this?

 

[busterdog]

Response: I couldn't say for certain (I'm not an expert), but my understanding is not that the weirdness has little impact on more "macro" events, but that it isn't really so weird because it can be measured probabilistically. E.g. There is the possibility that all the air in my room will tunnel to one side and I'll suffocate, and individual particles are, in fact, doing just that at any given time, but the larger the group one looks at, the less probable it is that the whole group will do that.

I have some idea of what you're trying to get at, now, though. If I'm mistaken, feel free to ignore this whole part of my response. If I understand, you're pointing out the supposition that observation is not inherently deceptive (at least, not beyond the ability of reason to penetrate). For example, it appears that the Earth is flat (arguably, a deceptive point), but with some reason it can be argued with conviction that it is round (reason overcoming the deception). This, I certainly do think.

I think you have it. Consistency in observation is a very good and practical tool. It is approved in the Bible for some purposes.

But, don't we all live our lives on the basis of areas where we believe in and aim to overcome consistency in observation and prove the exception? And where we are talking specifically about enormously remote events where God is both the acknowledged master and the only One who can operate in a realm where our laws don't hold up, shouldn't we give Him a wide berth? Especially when it looks like that realm dwarfs all that we can know?

Question: I would posit that the reason that you know that these passages are metaphorical and not literal, and the reason the ancient fathers knew that they were both, is because you have good reason to think that the Earth is round (and is not at the center of the solar system, etc.). Would you agree with this?

Yes.

It would be a reasonable proposition to say that if observation is going to determine how you interpret geocentric idioms, then why shouldn't it determine how you view Gen. 1?

One simple answer is a Biblical answer that this principle is quite limited. It is in part supported by the Bible (Dogs returning to their vomit are demonstably disgusting, and there it applies.). But, on many questions, this principle is flat out rejected. The death and resurrection of Jesus are confirmed by hearing, but not by observation for all but a very few of us. But, we are to accept it despite having never seen a resurrected man, let alone Jesus. Heliocentrism by contrast is demonstrated in pictures.

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

And for the same reason that drives my question above to you. Within the province of what God has spoken, He rules, not human observation. To many things He has not spoken, and so your rule applies.

But the point is not only that He has spoken. The point is also what is possible with God and where such things matter. Having no stake in whether the earth is heliocentric, the proposition that the earth might be geocentric is something for which "faith" would be meaningless. So why should we care about whether human observation is our first consideration there?

The creation of the universe is clearly something in which God has a very considerable stake. Matter from nothing is, not coincidentally, both His province and a stumbling block or at least a theoretical limit for physics. For all intents and purposes, the emergence of matter and energy from the singularity is that same creation ex nihilo, or creation for elsewhere anyway.

When physics presumes to speak for God, as in how matter came from nothing in the Big Bang, or how a human genome came from primordial ooze, we are dealing with two uniquely divine realms: 1. creation ex nihilo; and 2. probability. In both cases, we are looking back over enormous amounts of time and space, reaching inference upon inference. And God does say that He alone declares the end from the beginning.

 

[Willtor]

I think you have it. Consistency in observation is a very good and practical tool. It is approved in the Bible for some purposes.

But, don't we all live our lives on the basis of areas where we believe in and aim to overcome consistency in observation and prove the exception? And where we are talking specifically about enormously remote events where God is both the acknowledged master and the only One who can operate in a realm where our laws don't hold up, shouldn't we give Him a wide berth? Especially when it looks like that realm dwarfs all that we can know?

Response: For some clarification, what do you mean by areas where we aim to overcome consistency of observation?

Yes.

It would be a reasonable proposition to say that if observation is going to determine how you interpret geocentric idioms, then why shouldn't it determine how you view Gen. 1?

One simple answer is a Biblical answer that this principle is quite limited. It is in part supported by the Bible (Dogs returning to their vomit are demonstably disgusting, and there it applies.). But, on many questions, this principle is flat out rejected. The death and resurrection of Jesus are confirmed by hearing, but not by observation for all but a very few of us. But, we are to accept it despite having never seen a resurrected man, let alone Jesus. Heliocentrism by contrast is demonstrated in pictures.

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

And for the same reason that drives my question above to you. Within the province of what God has spoken, He rules, not human observation. To many things He has not spoken, and so your rule applies.

But the point is not only that He has spoken. The point is also what is possible with God and where such things matter. Having no stake in whether the earth is heliocentric, the proposition that the earth might be geocentric is something for which "faith" would be meaningless. So why should we care about whether human observation is our first consideration there?

The creation of the universe is clearly something in which God has a very considerable stake. Matter from nothing is, not coincidentally, both His province and a stumbling block or at least a theoretical limit for physics. For all intents and purposes, the emergence of matter and energy from the singularity is that same creation ex nihilo, or creation for elsewhere anyway.

When physics presumes to speak for God, as in how matter came from nothing in the Big Bang, or how a human genome came from primordial ooze, we are dealing with two uniquely divine realms: 1. creation ex nihilo; and 2. probability. In both cases, we are looking back over enormous amounts of time and space, reaching inference upon inference. And God does say that He alone declares the end from the beginning.

Question: It's certainly true that creation ex nihilo cannot be addressed by physics (that gets into questions of whence physics comes). But more to the core of your point (if I understand), you have a picture of the Earth from space and this makes it a simple matter of observation to you. If the Church father, who has no such picture, wants to question you more on the matter, would he be justified in saying that the shape of the Earth (or its position in the universe, etc.) is a matter of faith?

 

[busterdog]

Response: For some clarification, what do you mean by areas where we aim to overcome consistency of observation?

The reprobate can be redeemed. New inspiration can come out of frustration. An addict can be made clean. God's judgment can be turned to mercy. Einstein found a way to make the consistent flow of time bend, at least theoretically. A recent experiment demonstrated faster than light-speed travel.

Question: It's certainly true that creation ex nihilo cannot be addressed by physics (that gets into questions of whence physics comes). But more to the core of your point (if I understand), you have a picture of the Earth from space and this makes it a simple matter of observation to you. If the Church father, who has no such picture, wants to question you more on the matter, would he be justified in saying that the shape of the Earth (or its position in the universe, etc.) is a matter of faith?

He would not be justified. There is no good reason for a religious faith in geocentrism and no good observational basis it.

 

[Willtor]

The reprobate can be redeemed. New inspiration can come out of frustration. An addict can be made clean. God's judgment can be turned to mercy. Einstein found a way to make the consistent flow of time bend, at least theoretically. A recent experiment demonstrated faster than light-speed travel.

Response: I understand. To the question (whether we live our lives on the basis of areas when we believe in and aim to overcome this consistency) - I'll take the example of an addict overcoming addiction. This is certainly a wonderful and surprising thing. But I don't think it's a matter of overcoming consistency of observation. It may be that the man (or woman, but we'll suppose it's a man for this example) has been healed and transformed through a miracle. This may or may not be a proper area for the application of science (depending on what sort of a miracle it is) but it has certainly yielded observable consequences: ie - he is no longer an addict. If he were still, in fact, doing drugs and were claiming he had been healed from his addiction, then to believe him would be to argue against the consistency of observation. But if he no longer does drugs, then to believe his claim to healing would be more consistent with consistency of observation.

It isn't a matter of "we know that this can't happen - therefore it probably hasn't happened" but rather "it looks like this hasn't happened - therefore it probably hasn't happened." In the case of the healed addict, it looks very much like this has happened, regardless of whether we have a good natural explanation.

He would not be justified. There is no good reason for a religious faith in geocentrism and no good observational basis it.

Question: Potentially, some of the people to whom you are speaking have argued that the shape of the earth or its position really are proper matters of faith (though, certainly, some haven't). What reasoning would you use to persuade this father that the shape/position of the Earth is not a matter of faith but is rightly based on observation?

 

[busterdog]

My turn. Busy week.

 

[busterdog]

Response: I understand. To the question (whether we live our lives on the basis of areas when we believe in and aim to overcome this consistency) - I'll take the example of an addict overcoming addiction. This is certainly a wonderful and surprising thing. But I don't think it's a matter of overcoming consistency of observation. It may be that the man (or woman, but we'll suppose it's a man for this example) has been healed and transformed through a miracle. This may or may not be a proper area for the application of science (depending on what sort of a miracle it is) but it has certainly yielded observable consequences: ie - he is no longer an addict. If he were still, in fact, doing drugs and were claiming he had been healed from his addiction, then to believe him would be to argue against the consistency of observation. But if he no longer does drugs, then to believe his claim to healing would be more consistent with consistency of observation.

It isn't a matter of "we know that this can't happen - therefore it probably hasn't happened" but rather "it looks like this hasn't happened - therefore it probably hasn't happened." In the case of the healed addict, it looks very much like this has happened, regardless of whether we have a good natural explanation.

If most of what is in this universe and what makes up our very bodies is beyond our perception and understanding, shouldn't we rightly compare what we think we have in front of us with with we think someone's condition will cause for him in the future? In both cases, we face a very large and demonstrable limit on knowing what reality is and what the next discovery will be. Why are rocks (appearing old to some) any more solid than a medical diagnosis (appearing hopeless)?

Question: Potentially, some of the people to whom you are speaking have argued that the shape of the earth or its position really are proper matters of faith (though, certainly, some haven't). What reasoning would you use to persuade this father that the shape/position of the Earth is not a matter of faith but is rightly based on observation

I would say, look at the difference between counting and describing the appearance of something. God counts days in Genesis and Exd. 20. How is it that people use these words? How many times does someone say six days and mean thousands, let alone billions? But, do people speak of apparent motion or relative size and mean no more than what they say, that something appeared to move in relation to something else? Of course.

Are people really the same size as grasshoppers? No. Similarly, we don't assume that God literally parks His derierre on the horizon? People well understand the difference between stating how something appears and stating how things are.

Isa 40:22
[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[Willtor]

If most of what is in this universe and what makes up our very bodies is beyond our perception and understanding, shouldn't we rightly compare what we think we have in front of us with with we think someone's condition will cause for him in the future? In both cases, we face a very large and demonstrable limit on knowing what reality is and what the next discovery will be. Why are rocks (appearing old to some) any more solid than a medical diagnosis (appearing hopeless)?

Response: The first is an observation and the second is a prediction. Actually, the diagnosis is an observation and the "appearing hopeless" is a prediction. I think I can explain by distinguishing the two: the man is observed to have cancer (or be a junkie; but I'm changing it to cancer because typically doctors don't give up hope on junkies. ). A doctor runs tests on him and makes calculations that amount to fairly conclusive data that he has cancer. His diagnosis is cancer. This is the same sort of thing as rocks (appearing old to some). The prediction is that the man will not get well. If the cancer disappears it refutes the prediction, but not the observations. He had cancer. If we say he did not actually have cancer, then he was not made well (by a miracle or any other means). It is by confirming the observation that we are made aware of healing.

I would say, look at the difference between counting and describing the appearance of something. God counts days in Genesis and Exd. 20. How is it that people use these words? How many times does someone say six days and mean thousands, let alone billions? But, do people speak of apparent motion or relative size and mean no more than what they say, that something appeared to move in relation to something else? Of course.

Are people really the same size as grasshoppers? No. Similarly, we don't assume that God literally parks His derierre on the horizon? People well understand the difference between stating how something appears and stating how things are.

Isa 40:22
[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Question: Many of the people have probably heard the book of Enoch and perhaps _do_ think that God literally sits atop the dome (or on a throne that sits on it). That aside, showing someone one passage that is agreed to be metaphorical next to a passage that is in dispute generally doesn't convince the one who thinks it is literal. I don't mean to be hard, though, and I won't press the point beyond this: Would you be convinced about a passage that you thought was literal if someone were to put it next to a passage that both you and he agreed was figurative, even if he used arguments similar in form to those you used?

 

[busterdog]

Yikes! I have been avoiding the hard jobs again.

 

[busterdog]

Response: The first is an observation and the second is a prediction. Actually, the diagnosis is an observation and the "appearing hopeless" is a prediction. I think I can explain by distinguishing the two: the man is observed to have cancer (or be a junkie; but I'm changing it to cancer because typically doctors don't give up hope on junkies. ). A doctor runs tests on him and makes calculations that amount to fairly conclusive data that he has cancer. His diagnosis is cancer. This is the same sort of thing as rocks (appearing old to some). The prediction is that the man will not get well. If the cancer disappears it refutes the prediction, but not the observations. He had cancer. If we say he did not actually have cancer, then he was not made well (by a miracle or any other means). It is by confirming the observation that we are made aware of healing.

Don't looking forward and backward both use the process of constructing a conclusion based upon inferences? In view of the constant revisions of our view of the past, how is the form of reason any different looking forward as opposed to looking ahead?

Question: Many of the people have probably heard the book of Enoch and perhaps _do_ think that God literally sits atop the dome (or on a throne that sits on it). That aside, showing someone one passage that is agreed to be metaphorical next to a passage that is in dispute generally doesn't convince the one who thinks it is literal. I don't mean to be hard, though, and I won't press the point beyond this: Would you be convinced about a passage that you thought was literal if someone were to put it next to a passage that both you and he agreed was figurative, even if he used arguments similar in form to those you used?

Nothing harsh there. Not sure what you are asking. Not sure how you can say necessarily that a figurative passage will say anything at all about a different passage. YOu will just have to try me on the passages. To be candid, my conclusions about scripture are partially based on scriptural integrity being an a priori. So, I have that bias to start with.

 

[Willtor]

Don't looking forward and backward both use the process of constructing a conclusion based upon inferences? In view of the constant revisions of our view of the past, how is the form of reason any different looking forward as opposed to looking ahead?

Response: The nature of the inferences are not quite the same. Once the object of a prediction is in the past, it is the same. When one looks back, one perceives the effects and infers causes. Looking forward, one perceives the causes and infers effects.

Here is an example of the sort of difference:

1. You decide to make a campfire. You stack wood together over some kindling and light the kindling. You infer that by morning the wood will be reduced to charcoal and ashes. You infer this because you have some knowledge of the nature of the process (fire) and a cause with sufficient conditions to produce the effect.

2. You come upon a fire pit with charcoal and ashes. You infer that there was a fire here at one point. You arrived at your inference because you have some knowledge of the nature of the process and the effect.

Knowledge of the second sort is more certain than knowledge of the first, provided sufficient evidence remains to say anything at all. That is because as far as the second is concerned, it is constrained. Nothing can influence the effect. One can explore and study causes and perceptions may change but both cause and effect are fixed. As to the other, even if the effect is fixed (as in the mind of God) there is no practical means (and possibly no means at all) to calculate the effect because there is no way to measure the influences of all of the causes converging on a moment until the moment is past. That's why in lab so much effort was taken to minimize foreign causes that might unduly influence an experiment. That's why, in principle, it is better to perform many experiments.

Nothing harsh there. Not sure what you are asking. Not sure how you can say necessarily that a figurative passage will say anything at all about a different passage. YOu will just have to try me on the passages. To be candid, my conclusions about scripture are partially based on scriptural integrity being an a priori. So, I have that bias to start with.

Question: I'm not suggesting the other person thinks that Scripture has no integrity. On the contrary. The other person (let's say, from the future, come to visit) merely has a different interpretation of a passage. Let's take the resurrection of Christ. He says the resurrection account is figurative and he points you to other figurative passages (such as the fixity of the Earth) and shows you that you agree that they are figurative. Furthermore, he argues, "how often do we say that such-and-such a person is resurrected when, after his death, his teachings suddenly become apprehended and lived?" He, too, is entirely persuaded that the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant. But, like the Earth being fixed, Jesus' resurrection is a metaphor.

I don't mean for you to argue with this reasoning. Simply, is his reasoning valid? If not, go back to how you would try to persuade an ancient Father that the Earth was round/traveled around the Sun. Would you still try to convince him by pointing to other figurative passages?