If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

[Loudmouth]

So did the withholding of our belief come before the evidence existed? In other words if we continue to withhold our belief does that mean evidence does not exist until we believe in the evidence?

The evidence is independent of our belief. You don't have to believe in the evidence, just as you don't have to believe that the Moon is made of rocks for the Moon to be made of rocks. You can independently confirm that the Moon is made of rocks no matter what your beliefs are.

I hope you would disagree with that, but disagreeing with that means you must believe evidence exists whether or not we believe in it, right?

It could be that I never find any evidence that would settle the issue, so I will never have a well supported conclusion for what happened. "I don't know" is certainly a possible outcome of any investigation.

So we must use our minds to realize the truth of the evidence. If everyone with holds their belief until there is conclusive evidence, no one would even search for evidence. We have to believe the evidence is there in order to search for it and find it.

We can look at evidence before we have conclusive evidence. You don't have to convict someone of murder before you start looking for clues. You have a very backwards view of the world, btw.

 

[Chriliman]

I never said that -- that means your premise is invalid.

ME-Okay, so you believe in the unalterable truth that the ants covered the apple while you were unconscious, correct?

YOU-It's a fact.

You were also not conscious when the universe came into existence right? So according to your answer above you believe it's a fact that the universe once did not exist, but now it exists, right? So if its an unalterable truth that it did not exist, how was that truth altered to now it existing?

It's a complicated process called "change." You can Google it later.

It's illogical to think an unalterable truth can be altered or changed.

 

[Chriliman]

The evidence is independent of our belief. You don't have to believe in the evidence, just as you don't have to believe that the Moon is made of rocks for the Moon to be made of rocks. You can independently confirm that the Moon is made of rocks no matter what your beliefs are.



It could be that I never find any evidence that would settle the issue, so I will never have a well supported conclusion for what happened. "I don't know" is certainly a possible outcome of any investigation.



We can look at evidence before we have conclusive evidence. You don't have to convict someone of murder before you start looking for clues. You have a very backwards view of the world, btw.

I never once referred to convicting anyone of murder. I'm only talking about the existence of reality. As far as murder is concerned it's more reasonable to "believe" they are innocent until proven guilty. Assuming someone committed a murder is unreasonable because it's very possible that they didn't commit the murder. My view of the world is that it's best to be as objective as possible and not assume anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never once referred to convicting anyone of murder.

Do you think we have to convict someone of murder before we look for evidence of their guilt? That seems to be the argument you are making.

As far as murder is concerned it's more reasonable to "believe" they are innocent until proven guilty.

Then why would you ever look for evidence that they are guilty? If you start with the belief that they are innocent, then how could we ever find them guilty?

Assuming someone committed a murder is unreasonable because it's very possible that they didn't commit the murder. My view of the world is that it's best to be as objective as possible and not assume anything.

How is that different than assuming they didn't commit the murder.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's illogical to think an unalterable truth can be altered or changed.

Obviously, then, the truth can be altered. Does that shock you?

 

[Chriliman]

Obviously, then, the truth can be altered. Does that shock you?

We weren't there to alter the truth, so who altered it? Besides it very illogical to think that unalterable truth can be altered. It wouldn't be unalterable if it was altered.

The word altered becomes one of those weird sounding words when you say it too much.

 

[Chriliman]

Do you think we have to convict someone of murder before we look for evidence of their guilt? That seems to be the argument you are making.


Then why would you ever look for evidence that they are guilty? If you start with the belief that they are innocent, then how could we ever find them guilty?



How is that different than assuming they didn't commit the murder.

When someone commits a murder that no one else knows about, the person who committed it is the only person who knows the truth. The evidence begins to surface when others notice the murdered person is missing and they notify the police. The police then realize someone is missing and begin an investigation where they begin asking questions. They don't know the truth about what happened to the person so it would be unreasonable to assume they were murdered. They would continue questioning and finding more evidence that would lead them to a person of interest. They would then question this person that the evidence is pointing to and try to determine if the person actually did it. After awhile they may start to assume the person is lying based on the evidence. But they still don't know the truth, so assuming they know the truth would still be unreasonable. They should still believe the person is innocent in order to maintain complete objectivity and in order to let the evidence speak the truth, since the person is denying they did it. So either the evidence uncovered will reveal the truth or the person themselves will reveal the truth, no assumptions needed. Of course this is a perfect situations with perfect policemen, in the real world people make assumptions all the time, the point is they really don't have to.

Just try it for yourself. Consciously try to not assume anything about anyone or anything, but instead just ask questions first, you may realize it will help you view people and life in a more positive way. You'll also begin to be more honest with yourself, because you'll become use to asking honest questions, instead of making assumptions, which will flow out to others, making others want to be more honest as well.

 

[Neogaia777]

Every Word of God has to be considered true, by definition. If the Word is not true then we have no salvation and no promises of God to receive. I don't expect this to be received but is my two cents.

There are many different kinds of truth...

God Bless!

 

[TLK Valentine]

We weren't there to alter the truth, so who altered it? Besides it very illogical to think that unalterable truth can be altered. It wouldn't be unalterable if it was altered.

Then obviously it's not unalterable. It never was, but you proclaimed it so.

There's a simple explanation: You were wrong.

 

[Goonie]

Then obviously it's not unalterable. It never was, but you proclaimed it so.

There's a simple explanation: You were wrong.

Welcome to presuppositional apologetics.

 

[Chriliman]

Then obviously it's not unalterable. It never was, but you proclaimed it so.

There's a simple explanation: You were wrong.

Don't agree to "believe" in an unalterable truth to then just say it can be altered later when it works better for your position. You've managed to contradict yourself by first saying you "believe" in an unalterable truth and then saying you "believe" that unalterable truth is alterable.

This reasoning makes 0 sense to me. Which is why I hold the position that I "believe" in an unalterable truth and that truth can NEVER be altered. Issue with this "belief" is that when applied to an infinite singularity, that infinite singularity could NEVER not be an infinite singularity, thus my "belief" that it's unalterably true that the universe was created. By holding this position I NEVER contradict my "belief" in an unalterable truth.

Unless, you want to continue contradicting yourself, I'd suggest you investigate the possibility that the universe was created.

 

[Chriliman]

Welcome to presuppositional apologetics.

I've used sound reason to support my belief that the universe was created. By doing this I don't even need to use scripture to support my position. This is just pure reasoning and the only way to disagree with it is to contradict yourself or refuse to answer the tough questions.

My only request would be that you stop assuming that God doesn't exist and instead start asking real questions to then determine for yourself that God doesn't exist. This requires you to be very honest with yourself.

 

[Goonie]

Guess we'll have to wait until Jesus falls out of a cloud riding a horse

I hope it's got wings, might be embarrassing.

 

[Goonie]

I've used sound reason to support my belief that the universe was created. By doing this I don't even need to use scripture to support my position. This is just pure reasoning and the only way to disagree with it is to contradict yourself or refuse to answer the tough questions.

My only request would be that you stop assuming that God doesn't exist and instead start asking real questions to then determine for yourself that God doesn't exist. This requires you to be very honest with yourself.

i am honest, I just don't go assuming facts not in evidence. A God/gods might be one possible reason for the universe, but I see no reason to lend it any greater weight than a naturalistic explanation. Indeed not unsurprisingly I suspect the latter explanation is the more plausible.

 

[Chriliman]

i am honest, I just don't go assuming facts not in evidence. A God/gods might be one possible reason for the universe, but I see no reason to lend it any greater weight than a naturalistic explanation. Indeed not unsurprisingly I suspect the latter explanation is the more plausible.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm claiming these are my beliefs and I've used reason to explain my beliefs. If a naturalistic god created this universe only that god would be able to give us an explanation for why it created this universe. If that god has no intention of explaining anything then we will never know that a god exists. Except that many people believe in God, so explain how its possible for people to believe in something that never intended to explain itself to them?

 

[Goonie]

I'm not assuming anything, I'm claiming these are my beliefs and I've used reason to explain my beliefs. If a naturalistic god created this universe only that god would be able to give us an explanation for why it created this universe. If that god has no intention of explaining anything then we will never know that a god exists. Except that many people believe in God, so explain how its possible for people to believe in something that never intended to explain itself to them?

I never said I believed in a naturalistic God, but a naturalistic explanation, do not twist words. And millions of children believe in Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy but that does not effect the fact that neither exist (sorry to anybody out there who has not worked this out). It is true I am sympathetic to the Unitarian, deist(Jefferson) position.

 

[Chriliman]

I never said I believed in a naturalistic God, but a naturalistic explanation, do not twist words. And millions of children believe in Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy but that does not effect the fact that neither exist (sorry to anybody out there who has not worked this out). It is true I am sympathetic to the Unitarian, deist(Jefferson) position.

I realize just because one believes in something doesn't make that something true. But if one believes in something and receives confirmation of their belief then they're not inclined to disbelieve the confirmation, but rather accept it as truth. What exactly do you mean when you say you're sympathetic to the Unitarian position?

 

[Goonie]

I realize just because one believes in something doesn't make that something true. But if one believes in something and receives confirmation of their belief then they're not inclined to disbelieve the confirmation, but rather accept it as truth. What exactly do you mean when you say you're sympathetic to the Unitarian position?

That one should base beliefs in rational enquiry,not external authority is a good place to start.

 

[Chriliman]

That one should base beliefs in rational enquiry,not external authority is a good place to start.

Does it seem my beliefs are not based on rational enquiry?

If there is no ultimate authority, then we can all believe whatever we want with no consequence because there's no ultimate authority to dictate truth from lies. This is the very reason I believe in an ultimate authority because it makes more sense to believe in this rather than to believe I am my own ultimate authority. If I am my own ultimate authority then truth is determined by what I believe. This seems irrational to me, which is why I believe there is an ultimate authority that dictates truth, because it wouldn't makes sense for me to be able to dictate truth. I can only accept what is true.

 

[Isaacsname]

I hope it's got wings, might be embarrassing.

Well, maybe it floats down to earth like a cartoon feather