When Genesis describes the the presence of light prior to the existence of sun and stars--do you think that reflects scientific reality?
The authors of Genesis were trying to describe this:That's all very well, but how do we know that is what the author(s) of Genesis 1 were trying to describe?
No, you have no evidence for that.
Yes I am familiar with the CONCEPT of an infinite God. That is a human concept.I have no evidence that an infinite God would have at least "one other idea" for a source of light other than fusion reactions 93 million miles from Earth??
Are you familiar with the concept of "infinite God"??
Its like saying "you have no evidence that water is wet"
What's His name?Yes I am familiar with the CONCEPT of an infinite God. That is a human concept.
Yes I am familiar with the CONCEPT of an infinite God. That is a human concept.
Right.Which god?
I'm not sure what that link to Wikipedia demonstrates, but clearly the Genesis account of creation completely gets the order of the development of the cosmos wrong.
That's all very well, but how do we know that is what the author(s) of Genesis 1 were trying to describe?
Not quite...it includes poetry, metaphor, and historical narrative. The problem is with the texts use of historical narrative and that narrative's contradiction with observed science.Genesis 1 is poetry and full of metaphor.
When Genesis describes the the presence of light prior to the existence of sun and stars--do you think that reflects scientific reality?
No, you have no evidence for that.
Yes I am familiar with the CONCEPT of an infinite God. That is a human concept.
When Genesis describes the the presence of light prior to the existence of sun and stars--do you think that reflects scientific reality?
You have made an an ascertain--not provided evidence. I don't accept assertions without evidence.I have no evidence that an infinite God would have at least "one other idea" for a source of light other than fusion reactions 93 million miles from Earth??
Are you familiar with the concept of "infinite God"??
Its like saying "you have no evidence that water is wet"
I have not used circular logic. Please show me exactly where I did that. If you understand circular reasoning this should be easy.You are assuming the salient point of your own argument - that is circular logic.
Of course we have different views. I will certainly express mine and I expect you to do the same. The difference is that I will provide actual evidence for my views upon request.you are switching to a context not in the discussion you started
--- should we start with "what is my view of Genesis"??
Or did you mean to ask the question "Given Caliban's view of Genesis does Caliban think that light can exist without Earth's Sun?"
Including ylem?The difference is that I will provide actual evidence for my views upon request.
It's a name for the earliest 'stuff' produced by the big bang; presumably, the quark-gluon plasma that eventually condensed into particles.I don't know what that is.